Nelson Mandela - a folk hero, a "prisoner of conscience" or a terrorist and racist?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

On July 18, 1918, the statesman and politician of the Republic of South Africa (South Africa), the former President of South Africa (1994-18-07 - 1999-05-12) Nelson Mandela, 1993 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, was born. Until now, both in society and in the press, there are different opinions about this person: some write that he is a national hero, others are a terrorist. Who is right, where is she - the truth?

"Freedom fighter", "one of the famous figures of the XX century", "a modest altruist who single-handedly managed to crush the apartheid regime", "prisoner of conscience" - in the epitaphs published by leading Western media, Nelson Mandela appears as a kind of impeccable politician who took after death a worthy place in the pantheon of "democratic heroes".

Liberal journalists and human rights activists raised it to the banners in the early 90s, proclaiming it a “symbol of resistance”. About Nelson Mandela, as well as about the events and situation in the country that took place at that time, our article.

On the night of December 6, 2013, Nelson Mandela, the first black president of the Republic of South Africa, “a fighter against apartheid, a prisoner of conscience, the main African politician of the 20th century,” died (as the liberal press writes about him). He was 95 years old. Almost a third of his life, Nelson Mandela spent behind bars, so long before his death he was already recognized as a martyr.

Condolences to the family of the deceased came from all over the world. And along with them - recognition of "the merits of Mandela in the field of the struggle for democracy and freedom." In Mandela's homeland, his fellow tribesmen staged funeral dances, and his relatives prepared for the decisive battle for the inheritance.

The reason for the widespread attention to the death of the retired politician is simple: since the early 1980s, the leader of the African National Congress (ANC), who served a life sentence in solitary confinement, has become a symbol of resistance for the world community.

According to official figures, Nelson Mandela is one of the main human rights activists in the 20th century. He opposed the apartheid regime, defending the interests of the black population when they did not have the right to leave the reservation, received education and health services of much poorer quality, etc.

In 1962, Nelson Mandela, who led an armed struggle against apartheid, went to prison, where he remained until 1990. And before considering "his struggle" with the apartheid regime, as well as the essence of the regime itself, it is necessary to consider the origins of the situation that has developed in South Africa.

A bit of history

In 1652, the Dutch and other European settlers (their descendants began to be called Boers) founded the first settlement on the site of modern South Africa - the Cape Colony. The Cape Colony proved to be the most successful resettlement project of all the Dutch colonies and the most successful European resettlement project on the African continent.

The Dutch, as well as the Germans and French Huguenots who joined them, formed a new white nation in Africa - Afrikaners (also Boers), numbering about 3 million people. Based on the Dutch language, their new language, Afrikaans, developed here.

Thanks to hard work (who exactly, a little further), high culture of agriculture and production, the Boers in a short time turned it and the surrounding areas into a blooming garden. However, it must be remembered what those times were.

It was not just white farmers from Europe who moved to these places, but farmers with their slaves (the suppliers of these slaves were such regions as: West Africa, Asia, Indonesia, Ceylon, Madagascar). And for some reason this moment is bypassed or mentioned somehow in passing.

It is enough to read the same Wikipedia on the topic "Cape Colony", where it is mentioned only once, but this is supposedly the Boers (whites) were so hardworking and "developed" the colony. In general, these were slave owners and their slaves.

In 1806, the British captured the Cape Colony, pushing the Boers north to the province of Natal. Why did the Boers begin to move further north? The fact is that the British introduced English as the state language, collected taxes in favor of the British treasury and began to introduce the first rudimentary rights for the black African population of the Cape, and in 1833 they abolished slavery in the entire British Empire altogether.

Compensation for material damage for lost slaves seemed laughable to the Boers, since the British treasury paid money at West Indian (American) prices, and in South Africa, slaves were worth twice as much. With the abolition of slavery, many Boer farmers went bankrupt.

Unsurprisingly, the Boers were vehemently opposed to these social changes, which led to their massive displacement within the country. But in 1843, Great Britain also captured Natal, so the Boers were forced to found two independent states even further north - the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State.

Comparing the white colonists with the black inhabitants of Africa, the American writer Mark Twain, who visited the Transvaal, spoke very harshly about the Boers:

“The black savage … was good-natured, sociable and infinitely welcoming … He … lived in a barn, was lazy, worshiped a fetish … His place was taken by the Boer, the white savage. He is dirty, lives in a barn, lazy, worships a fetish; besides, he is gloomy, unfriendly and important and diligently prepares to go to heaven - probably realizing that he will not be allowed to go to hell."

The assistant to the Russian military agent (attaché) in the Transvaal, Captain (later Major General) von Siegern-Korn, was more restrained in his assessments:

“The Boers were never convinced and inveterate, so to speak, slave owners. the very next year after they founded the republic, at one of the very crowded rallies, it was decided voluntarily and unanimously to renounce forever the enslavement of blacks and the trade of slaves. In this spirit, a corresponding proclamation was issued.

It did not provoke a single protest from anyone and was not subsequently violated by anyone. In essence, it only abolished the formal right of ownership of living human goods, while relations with the conquered blacks remained the same. This is understandable. The Boers could not regard the wild enemies they had just defeated as equals.

As long as the black servant serves him with humility and devotion, he treats him calmly, justly, and even good-naturedly. But it is enough for the Boer to sense the slightest shade of treachery in a black man, the slightest spark of indignation, as a calm and good-natured owner turns into a formidable, unforgiving executioner and subjects the recalcitrant to cruel punishment, not embarrassed by any consequences."

At the end of the 19th century, in the territory of modern South Africa, untold reserves of gold and diamonds were explored. Inspired by international corporations (about one of them, read the article “ZhZL: Witsen Nikolaas: Executive“Manager”in Global Processes”) Great Britain unleashed the bloodiest Anglo-Boer War (1899 - 1902), using for the first time “innovations” in the conduct of war - the tactics of “scorched land”, explosive bullets, genocide of the Negro population.

Unable to withstand the onslaught of the 250,000th expeditionary force, the Boers surrendered. For sixty years the country was occupied and became a British colony.

A very, very interesting fact of how the whites colonized the lands of other whites, who had previously colonized them themselves. It is worth remembering that the Russian public at the beginning of the last century was on the side of the Boers, many went to the distant war as volunteers, including the famous Duma leader Guchkov.

Only in 1961, the Boers and the descendants of the British occupiers proclaimed an independent state.

The Boers, long before the British, founded Cape Town, Pretoria, Bloemfontein and numerous settlements and farms, while the British brought large industrial production to the country. By the 80s of the twentieth century, South Africa took a leading place in the world in the extraction of gold, platinum, chromite, manganese, antimony, diamonds, in the production of uranium oxide, cast iron, and aluminum.

Developed agriculture has made it possible to export agricultural products to many countries. Education and medicine deserved the highest praise. Great Britain brought with it its own legal system, which secured the ownership of white farmers in agricultural land.

The policy of apartheid criticized by the world community was a rather harsh division of the white and black population in all spheres of life, the roots of which lay in the previous slavery regime.

At the same time, it was based not only on the racist policy of the white minority, but also on the unwillingness of many representatives of the Negro population to integrate into the political and economic life of the country, to accept the language, culture and beliefs of the white population.

Lies of apartheid

Apartheid(from Afrikaans apartheid - "separation") - the official policy of racial segregation, pursued in the Republic of South Africa (South Africa, until 1961 - the Union of South Africa, South Africa) from 1948 to 1994 by the National Party.

The term was first used in 1917 by Jan Christiaan Smuts (African Jan Christiaan Smuts; May 24, 1870 - September 11, 1950) - South African statesman and military leader, Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa from September 3, 1919 to June 30, 1924 and from September 5, 1939 to June 4, 1948. Field Marshal - May 24, 1941. He took part in the creation of the Charter of the League of Nations - in particular, he proposed the mandate system).

The policy of apartheid boiled down to the fact that all South Africans were divided according to race.

Different rights were set for different groups. The main laws of the policy of apartheid laid down the following rules:

• Africans had to live in special reservations (bantustans). Departure from the reservation and appearance in large cities could only be carried out with special permission;
• Africans were prohibited from opening factories or working in areas designated as "white South Africa" (essentially all important cities and economic zones) without special permission. They were supposed to move to the Bantustans and work there;
• Africans were deprived of almost all civil rights;
• hospitals and ambulances were segregated: hospitals for whites were generally well-funded and provided high-quality services, while hospitals for Africans were chronically short of funds and workers. In many Bantustans, there were no hospitals at all;
• sexual contact and marriage between people of different races were prohibited;
• Africans were forbidden to buy strong alcohol, although this requirement was later relaxed;
• Africans were not allowed to be present in "white" churches;
• African children, according to the policy of apartheid, needed to be taught only the basic skills needed to work for whites;
• segregation into higher education was also envisaged: all reputable universities accepted only white students. Higher educational institutions were created for representatives of other racial groups, but the number of places for black students was very small.

You should take advantage of the experience of Arthur Kemp, who was born in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), whose youth he spent in South Africa, where he served in the police and was a member of the local Conservative party.

Arthur Kemp, in his article "The Lies of Apartheid", later released in book form, writes that there are two main reasons for changing the racial composition in any society: either a military occupation or the use of someone else's labor force.

The American Indians serve as a textbook example of military occupation, as described above, while South Africa serves as a textbook example of the "use of alien labor", although if you remember that the Boers came here with their slaves, and not only enslaved the local population, then the picture will be more complex.

According to Kemp, when a change occurs with the use of someone else's labor, the following process occurs:

• the dominant society imports (usually racially) alien labor to carry out official duties in that society;
• then these racial aliens firmly establish themselves, settle and reproduce numerically, relying on the structures of society (in white countries - on their science, health, technology, etc.);
• they finally dominate this society simply because of their multitude.

This is just a demographic reality: those who occupy the land determine the nature of this society … And our government should be careful when pursuing a policy of replacing the necessary demographic growth with migration flows, that is, "bringing" migrants into the country, instead of more actively developing a demographic policy in relation to the indigenous population.

This was and is, including, South Africa, where the population size shows how the use of alien labor by Afrikaners deprives them of "their own", once captured from other homelands.

Apartheid was founded on a mistake: the mistake of allowing non-whites to be used as the main labor force for society; that non-whites can physically form the majority in South Africa, but that they cannot determine the character of South African society.

Arthur Kemp writes:

"There has never been a society in which the majority of the population did not determine the nature of this society."

White South Africans, in his opinion, more or less believed this lie. They were happy when black domestic servants cleaned their homes, ironed their clothes, assembled the very beds they slept in, and were willing to believe that this mass of established black labor in their territory would never affect their political power and structure. country.

This practice has developed historically and the white population did not want to do anything about it.

It is said, in fact, that the definition of a white South African is:

"Someone who would rather be killed in bed than make it himself."

Is it funny? Honestly, not really, considering these real examples:

• Under apartheid, blacks could not use white public toilets, but every day they were used to clean those same toilets. One can only marvel at the naivety of such a "social agreement".
• Under apartheid, blacks could work in restaurant kitchens, prepare food, put it on plates and deliver it to the tables of white owners, but they could not eat this food at the same table with them in the same restaurant. What is this hypocrisy? Of course, if one is consistent, it would be possible to completely ban blacks from working in restaurants. But no, apartheid hasn't come that far; it was built on the premise that blacks would do the job.

Another important part of apartheid was that military force could supposedly keep the system intact. Demographic reality refuted this once again: the South African white population numbered about five million at its peak, while the black population at the time was about thirty million.

Of the five million whites, less than eight hundred thousand were of draft age, and not all of them could be called up at any moment. The state had to rely on no more than a few hundred thousand military personnel to try to control millions of blacks.

Given this demographic reality, it can be seen that the maintenance of apartheid by military means has not been sustainable. But the lies continued, and young white South Africans were drafted into the army and police to fight and die for a system that was doomed from the start.

At the same time, white Western health care and technology were available on a massive scale. The largest hospital in the Southern Hemisphere was built in the black village of Soweto, on the outskirts of Johannesburg, especially for the black population.

Infant mortality rates for blacks plummeted (and were lower than the rest of African black countries). This rapid population growth has put additional pressure on the country's demographic composition.

As the population bubble expanded further and further, the apartheid government was forced to come up with stricter and more brutal laws to protect whites as the black population continued to leapfrog year after year.

The apartheid government has refused to accept the basic truth of racial dynamics: those who occupy a space determine the nature of society in that space, regardless of who originally owned the space. And we note that it still belonged initially to the black population, but to the local population, and not to the black newcomer and their descendants. This must also be borne in mind when considering the difficult situation in South Africa.

The fate of white South Africa was sealed when territorial subdivision was not adjusted to fit demographic realities, when all efforts were directed towards the creation of black Bantustans, and none of them created a "white homeland", with the continued persistence in the use of black workers. strength.

Partial reforms of the mid-1980s - repealing laws prohibiting mixed racial marriages and mixed racial political parties, and limited constitutional reforms that gave Indians and people of color their own parliamentary chambers - did little to stem the growing violence.

In fact, racial violence has increased dramatically. The reforms created an unfulfilled “revolution of rising expectations,” and it was in this cycle of black violence and white counter violence that the racial war taking place within the country resulted in most of the deaths.

In 1990, the white government finally faced the truth that it could no longer effectively control the bloated black population, so it legalized the ANC and freed Nelson Mandela from prison. By 1994, power had been transferred to the ANC through a one-person, one-vote vote. Although strict apartheid ended in the 1980s, it is believed that it was from 1994 that this policy was put into retirement.

This was the inevitable result: apartheid could not be preserved. In practical terms, it had no strength due to demographic reality, and morally it was unacceptable, since it was based on violent suppression and slavery … Apartheid had to fall: the only question was not "if" but "when".

The politicians who sold it to white South Africans as their only hope and salvation were lying: either deliberately or out of ignorance of the reality in the relationship between demography and power …

From the above, it is clear that the use of non-white labor was a direct cause of the fall of apartheid and white rule in South Africa. And, according to Arthur Kemp, Afrikaners lost control of the country due to a lack of understanding of demographics, and not because of contrived "conspiracies" or "betrayals" as many would like to believe …

And here it is worth remembering a very accurate statement of the king of Afghanistan:

"A revolution is not a yurt, you can't put it where you want it."

Arthur Kemp very well in his article and book described demographic and social factors, the action of which created the prerequisites, but “diplomatically”, so as not to point the finger at anyone, he avoided considering who and how these prerequisites were used.

Project "Mandela" - Dudaev / Basaev early 1960s in South Africa

Nelson Mandela is undoubtedly one of the most promoted by the press and the West on the political scene of the twentieth century. However, you can look at the figure of the first black president of South Africa from a different angle.

We all remember very well how world propaganda told us "about the horrors of racism and apartheid in a distant South African country, about the just struggle of the African National Congress (as the name recalls all opposition" congresses "around the world) led by Nelson Mandela for equality and peace" …

Could we then know that there could be a government worse than the white "racist" one, and that many problems not only will not disappear, but will become almost catastrophic.

In the second half of the XX century, the Negro population received a powerful ally - the world "community". The white government of South Africa was under unprecedented pressure from both the socialist countries, which fought for the rights of the oppressed around the world, and the world capitalist "public", which sought to redistribute colossal revenues from mining in their favor.

Lavishly funded from abroad, black militants from the African National Congress (including Nelson Mandela) and similar organizations launched an active terror, which killed thousands of South Africans.

At the age of 30, Nelson Mandela became the organizer of the ANC terrorist wing. In the late 50s, at the age of 40, he left for Algeria to study, where for about two years he underwent terrorist training under the guidance of the French and British special services.

In addition to organizing individual killings and leading massive terrorist attacks on banks, bombing post offices, passport offices, eliminating judicial presences and their employees, Nelson Mandela was the overseer of the financial common fundterrorists.

Some facts from the biography:

• came from a family of hereditary Tembu leaders - the rulers of the South African Kosa people. During the apartheid period, the spit constituted the main population of the Siskei and Transkei Bantustans;
• from 1943 to 1948 he studied law at the University of the Witwatersrand. He did not receive a law degree, having failed the exams. Regarding the university, it is a classic example of a Victorian institution of higher education (1896) in the green suburb of the capital Pretoria, Johannesburg. It took a lot of money to study there;
• 1948 - early 50s - was invited to continue his studies at the University of London. During this period, MI6 most likely recruited;
• late 1950s - two-year "student internship" in Algeria;
• after an illegal transfer (1960) back to South Africa, he was detained (1962) while preparing for the next explosions of civilian objects (shopping centers and hospitals) in the capital,
• in an article in "Le Figaro" dated 2013-20-12, which indicates that in early 1962, Mandela made a short-term visit to Ethiopia, where he took courses of a terrorist-militant under the guidance of Mossad specialists.
• at the trial in 1964, he completely pleaded guilty to organizing mass terrorist attacks, but rejected the charge of high treason.

Rally in South Africa, August 1962

The materials of the court included documents about Mandela's planned appeal to third countries with a request for intervention,

from 1964 to 1982 spent in a prison on Robbon Island;

Mandela on trial in 1964, in prison - the correct daily routine, five balanced meals a day, regular walks in the fresh air contributed a lot to a long and healthy life. Mandela is a connoisseur of physical martial arts

in 1982, "for medical reasons" (for some reason Tymoshenko comes to mind) was transferred to a Cape Town prison. Due to the discovery of tuberculosis (!) In 1984, he was hospitalized

By the way, about the prison years. From official sources it is known that Mandela was imprisoned from 1964 to 1991 - 27 years. Of these, 18 years (1964 - 1982) on Robbon Island. Of these, the first six years in limestone mines, which caused the "tuberculosis" discovered in 1984.

Photographs like this are cited to confirm the grim decades of “prison torture”.

According to experts, these photos are staged. The whole photo session looked like this:

These photo sessions were a glorious tradition when US presidents visited South Africa.

So how did the prison years of the "prisoner of conscience" actually go?

I can't believe that this gentleman has been waving a pick in the mines for six years. Rather, he did it:

Early 70s, about. Robbon. Nelson Mandela poses in white pants, a hat, fashionable black glasses and a shovel in his hands. Together with his accomplices, he spuds the gardens and orchards of the prison's backyard economy.

When it became obvious that the Soviet Union was losing ground and abandoning the global confrontation with America, Washington decided to play the South African game more subtly. The United States has always renounced "vestiges of the past" and tried to portray itself as a one-of-a-kind "benevolent empire" with persistent anti-colonial traditions.

And when the danger that black fighters against apartheid would turn South Africa into another domino and establish a communist regime in the republic passed, the Americans realized that they had a chance to prove to the “third world” their “sincere desire for freedom,” and began to denounce the racist de Klerk's regime and praise the "Martyr Mandela".

In addition, as one of the founding fathers of neo-Marxism Jurgen Habermas noted (Habermas, Jürgen, b. 1929, German philosopher, the largest representative of the Frankfurt school. At the center of Habermas's philosophical reflections is the concept of communicative reason),

“The Western system is multidimensional and therefore knows how to deal with the enemy, gradually drawing him into his gut. This is what ensures its vitality."

A vivid proof of this thesis is the transformation of a radical black politician, a descendant of the leaders, who fiercely hated white colonists and for many years did not want to end the armed struggle with them, into a kind of an icon of democracy, a smiling selfless leader who was, it turns out, almost the South African Mahatma Gandhi.

At first, in the late 1980s, the West thought differently.

“The African National Congress,” Margaret Thatcher hissed then through clenched teeth, “is a typical terrorist organization, and those who think that it can come to power live in a world of nuts” …