I cannot believe that I am in agreement with Newt Gingrich again! Gingrich is one of the Republicans who calls Nelson Mandela a great man. This is in contrast to some who call Mandela a terrorist. Gingrich compares Mandela to the American revolutionaries who fought against the tyranny of the British. That is a point I always make. One man's idea of a terrorist is another man's idea of a freedom fighter. You think the Americans back then wanted to confront the professional Red Coats head on? They had to resort to surprise (sneaky) attacks. If you don't want to be colonized and you are facing an army with superior weapons, wouldn't you do the same? So if the term existed then wouldn't the British call the Americans terrorists? But to us they are freedom fighters.
The liberals and conservatives both went overboard in trying to use Mandela's death to their political advantage. The liberals made Mandela a saint who could do no wrong. They also criticized Reagan for siding with the apartheid South African government. On the other hand you get someone like Rick Santorum who compares Mandela to Tea Party people who are fighting against Obamacare. To equate Obamacare to apartheid is absurd. By that analogy the Canadians and Brits would be as bad off as the black South Africans back in the 60's. Besides, has anyone been sentenced to life for protesting Obamacare?
Now for my own hyperbole. I would rate Gandhi, Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew as the three most important leaders from third world countries in the 20th century. I would rate Gandhi first because his non violent civil disobedience not only led to independence for India but was an inspiration to many others including Mandela and M.L. King. Gandhi and Mandela are ahead of Lee because they did not want to become dictators. This was and still is very unusual in third world countries. Lee was a benign dictator but a dictator nevertheless. To his credit Lee is the only one of the three who transformed his country from poverty to wealth. So each has his own flaws and is not a saint. But each serves as inspiration for people all over the world.
Monday, December 09, 2013
3 comments:
Use the following html code to make a clickable link in your comment (instructions in the sidebar). You can test the link by previewing your comment.
<a href="http://angryyellowman.blogspot.com">Angry Yellow Man</a>
The above example will display as Angry Yellow Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really have no point as I respond back to your blog.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I disagreed with Reagan on was the support of Apartheid. I always thought he could have handled it differently.
I am amazed by Mandela's ability to survive all those years and not show an ounce of bitterness (at least in public). He was a uniter after he got out and a role model to many.
I was going to question why you included Lee Kuan Yew in the same breath as Gandhi and Mandela but realized that you had him in the leader category for third world countries.
I argue that South Africa is not a Third World Country, though some of its citizens live in poverty and disease.
I would also argue that things have gotten better for its citizens after Apartheid. Though the movement has been slow, it has not regressed.
I don't know much about Lee Kuan Yew to be honest. There's no question that Singapore has become a jewel of Asia and it is all because of Lee and his son. It took over 50 years for Singapore to reach its status. And there was a lot of turmoil during that time. Plus an alliance with Malaysia that didn't work out. so maybe there is hope for South Africa.
Gandhi's teachings live on in many people, however, we still see the Indian people fight with the Pakastans. And I think the west is even more involved in India now than it was pre WWII.
-LBOAYM
I do agree with you that Reagan was wrong on South Africa. But I think it is not fair to use Mandela's death to attack Reagan. I don't think that Reagan was a racist. He was against the ANC because he was a staunch anti-communist and he believed that the ANC was run by communists. It is like Kennedy and Johnson believed that if Vietnam fell then the rest of Asia will eventually become communist. This proved not to be the case and Kennedy and Johnson were wrong just as Reagan was wrong. But that did not make Reagan for apartheid. Reagan did appoint the first black ambassador to South Africa.
ReplyDeleteSouth Africa may or may not be considered third world but even though blacks are better off today than the days of apartheid, they are still overwhelmingly poor. So certainly it is far from a developed country and has not reach anywhere near its potential given its rich natural resources.
Singapore, with very little land and natural resources, has far exceeded expectation under Lee. At independence it was no sure thing that Singapore would survive since the poor minority natives did not want Chinese rule and the country was surrounded by much bigger Muslim nations of Malaysia and Indonesia. Lee had to convince the minority natives to buy into the country even though they were way more poor than the Chinese and Indians. Today the natives are huge part of the police and military forces. Even though they don't do as well educationally as the Chinese and Indians, they score about the same as the average American students on tests. So Lee was one of the few third world leaders who has been able to bring his country from poverty to great prosperity and also maintain peace with its bigger neighbors. Lee is not a freedom fighter like Gandhi and Mandela but he is certainly one of the great pragmatic leaders of the world.
Gandhi was killed early so it is hard to say what he could have accomplished. It is also hard to say if the British decision to divide the country into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan made things worse. In any case it is too bad that India and South Africa have not come up with great leaders after their great founding fathers.
I don't think anyone is using Mandela's death to criticize Reagan, are they? Though the two figures will go hand in hand for a long time, since a lot of the turmoil happened with Reagan in office.
ReplyDeleteAnd while eyes were on Washington DC to help sway things, Reagan aligned himself and the U.S. with the South African government.
I believe his hands were tied. Not to draw parallels, but our relationship with Israel is a complicated one, like it was in South Africa at the time.
I think it would have meant a ton if Reagan were to publicly reprimand what was going on there but he chose not to.
In hindsight, the public outcry at the time probably helped Mandela's cause, because it brought a lot of attention to those that were sent to prison.
It will be interesting to see what happens to South Africa in the next 20 years. There seems to be less of a gap from the haves and have nots there. But you'd figure that things would move a lot more quickly because of geography and natural resources. Keep in mind though, that it's only been 20+ years since Mandela was released.
I can't deny all that has happened in Singapore. Isn't Lee of Chinese decent? It is quite amazing that he was able to do what he did, coming from a middle class family. I only know 2 people personally from Singapore and they were both Chinese. They liked it there but thought that the laws were very strict. They were afraid of committing crimes. Maybe that's the way it should be?
-LBOAYM