It’s a truth universally acknowledged that George Bush can’t open his mouth without saying something stupid:
This has received attention from “Bush is stupid” commenters around the world. But in commenting on George Bush’s inability to communicate even the most basic of concepts – they missed the fallacy in what Bush was trying to say.
Whatever Nelson Mandela has become, the ANC, and larger black resistance against apartheid, was not the movement that Bush wants to persuade us it was. Mandela was arrested as a terrorist. The ANC was not non-violent; they blew stuff up and killed people.
You can say the ANC should have stuck to non-violent resistance (although I think to do so from the comfort of your own home would make you look like a right dick), but to imply that the ANC was non-violent (even if no-one understands what you’re trying to do) is just lying.
I see no indication that Bush is trying to convince of us anything concerning Mandela. The ANC certainly had communist ties, although those ties seem to consist more of various South African communist front groups using the ANC for cover – but the only people I’ve ever heard trying to spin this reality were leftists during the 1980s divestment movement trying to build popular support for Mandela and crew among Western liberals – and their spin largely came true so it’s hard to hold a grudge there. I’ve never heard anybody other than that small group try to obscure the reality of the ANC and Mandela’s joint past (and they weren’t trying to obscure so much as to minimize and temporize; that was decades ago, he’s much more reasonable now, etc. And he was, in fact.)
Rather, Bush is making the point that the Hussein regime was even more vicious to dissenters than the apartheid government of South Africa, and that this is causing problems for Iraq today. When South Africa was freed through democratic means, there was a population of political figures like Mandela capable of leading, who had strong ties to the organic population of the country. That population largely doesn’t exist in Iraq today, because by and large the Hussein regime killed such people, or they fled into exile and lost credibility with the existing population. This is too bad, because the Iraqi people right now could surely use some heroic internal leadership.
Maia, I think W is a horrible president, but I think he has a good point here. I didn’t assume he meant non-violent leaders. I assumed he meant ANY leaders.
Now, Since that is a great point, how was it not anticipated by his advisor’s?
If he didn’t mean non-violent then the answer is quite simple – Mandela is part of the Iraqi resistance.
There’s in no reason why people who were resisting Hussein’s regime would see the invasion of the US as freedom and a reason to stop resisting.
You can say the ANC should have stuck to non-violent resistance (although I think to do so from the comfort of your own home would make you look like a right dick),
At risk of looking like a right dick, I’ll say that I think that the ANC would have been better off sticking to non-violent methods because I think, in general, non-violent methods are more effective if your goal is to remove the oppressor and institute a fairer and more just society rather than just remove the oppressor and replace him/her with a new oppressor. Non-violent resistance teaches people how to work together for a common goal in a peaceful and, with any luck, vaguely democratic way whereas violence just teaches them that might makes right. However, the level of oppression and injustice I’ve had to face in my life has been distinctly minor compared to the level the average member of the ANC in the apartheid era faced and, obviously, they knew the situation better, so I’m not passing judgements, just making suggestions of what I think the best general technique for resisting tyranny is.
As far as Iraqi Mandelas, they are there. There are many potential leaders in Iraq. Hussein couldn’t kill them all and Bush hasn’t either yet. Time will tell whether the leader(s) who emerge are Mandelas or Mugabes.
I didn’t assume he meant non-violent leaders. I assumed he meant ANY leaders.
But then his words still seem blatantly false. Iraq had religious leaders before the war. I thought beforehand that they would probably gain power when we removed Saddam, since Iraq had not yet had Iran’s negative experience with theocracy. (I still think Iran could have a pro-American democracy in 20 years if Ward Churchill Bush stops hurting the movement.) By a startling coincidence, Muqtada al-Sadr got to kill Saddam and holds significant influence in the ‘government’, as do other clerics.
I assume he meant a leader with local credibility who was acceptable to western powers.
Nonviolence certainly worked well for Otpor, but they had people with guns helping at the end. (I think I saw one confirmed death, I’m not sure.) Nonviolent resistance has one great advantage: literally every other ‘crisis’ that researchers have looked at tends to increase so-called Right-Wing Authoritarianism. That would increase support for the ‘traditional’ authorities that you presumably want to remove from power (if this question matters to you).
Hmm.
Mandela certainly used violence during his campaign. But it was his nonviolent acts, and his preaching of nonviolence, which brought about the changes he sought. And also, his form of violence was more frequently directed against emplacements like power stations; he wasn’t a large advocate, say, of car bombings.
Overall, he was more a proponent of nonviolence than of violence. Overall, his successes are measured in that vein.
The Iraqi resistance is primarily a violent resistance, with some nonviolent elements. It may be that the resistance changes over time. It may be that it gains social acceptance, and/or world appeal; it may be that they become more like the ANC. When and if they do, I think it will be apparent. But they’re not there yet.
Joe – but that’s what makes the comparison bullshit. For decades Nelson Mandela wasn’t a credible local leader who was acceptable to Western powers, because he wasn’t acceptable to western powers.
Dianne – Not being there is what I meant about looking like a dick – I believe in
But I think your question about the effect of the different sorts of resistance is actually really interesting. I don’t disagree that the power dynamics of violent resistance can end up creating problems if groups take power. But there are also real danger in the sort of change over that happened in South Africa, where some things has changed, but much has remained the same for the vast majority of blacks.
apparently I don’t know any more about the history of Mandela than bush. Guess I shouldn’t be president either.