Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:57 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Given that huge numbers of those who voted for Chavez were lifted out of poverty and gained free healthcare and education for the first time, I wouldn’t say he stole from them, would you?

On the human rights front, I’d put him more in the George W Bush category than the Saddam or Mugabe category.

Compared with say, Pinochet, he should be beatified.

How much of the wealth he gained during his time in office was down to his business skills or his position and his access to contracts and the ability to award those contracts? Whilst much progress was made under leadership this level of corruption should not be overlooked in the race to pat him on the back. The same will happen when Mandela dies the bloodshed he directed will be overlooked.

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:00 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The same will happen when Mandela dies the bloodshed he directed will be overlooked.

You do understand what Mandela and the varied anti-apatheid forces were fighting against, don't you? The violence and "bloodshed" visited on black South Africans? A regime that met non-violent protest with fatal violence; that murdered children for daring to want a decent education and had suspects 'fall' out of high windows in police buildings?

You do realise that, don't you?

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:49 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

How much of the wealth he gained during his time in office was down to his business skills or his position and his access to contracts and the ability to award those contracts? Whilst much progress was made under leadership this level of corruption should not be overlooked in the race to pat him on the back.

My guess would be that a lot of the dosh was acquired through dodgy commissions or similar etc.
If that's the case, it needs to be weighed-up with all that he did, not just the bad stuff.

What is entirely predictable is villification emanating from the US rightwing, which prefers to deal with the likes of Pinochet or Saddam and utterly abhors any kind of wealth redistribution on social grounds.

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The same will happen when Mandela dies the bloodshed he directed will be overlooked.

I rather doubt that.
Again, there will be plenty of rightwingers, mainly in the US, who will ignore the good and the half-century of non-violence during which the oppressive apartheid regimes continued regardless.

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:52 am  

Mintball wrote:

You do understand what Mandela and the varied anti-apatheid forces were fighting against, don't you? The violence and "bloodshed" visited on black South Africans? A regime that met non-violent protest with fatal violence; that murdered children for daring to want a decent education and had suspects 'fall' out of high windows in police buildings?

You do realise that, don't you?

All sides were guilty of killings and other acts of violence, I suppose it depends on what side you take or outcome you wish to prevail as to whether its justified or not. Burning tyre's around peoples necks (thousands on their own people) were just as horrific as anything the white oppressive government did. A lot of innocents were killed by both side and knowing someone who was born & raised there, but now lives in the UK, the level of black on black violence is apparently not getting any better. Also, even after all these years of black majority rule, the average poor black South African doesn't appear to be any better off than before.

Most politicians are in it for what they can get, it just varies in the level of corruption depending what part of the world you live in.

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:15 pm  

Mintball wrote:

You do understand what Mandela and the varied anti-apatheid forces were fighting against, don't you? The violence and "bloodshed" visited on black South Africans? A regime that met non-violent protest with fatal violence; that murdered children for daring to want a decent education and had suspects 'fall' out of high windows in police buildings?

You do realise that, don't you?

I do realise that but it doesn't get away from the facts the ANC were a terrorist group that - under Mandela's leadership - murdered people. All in the struggle - but the idea he was a non-violent Gandhi type is a myth that should also be pointed out when the obituaries are written.

The question now, is SA a better place under the current regime - are the atrocities less than when say John Vorster was in charge?

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:30 pm  

rover49 wrote:

All sides were guilty of killings and other acts of violence, I suppose it depends on what side you take or outcome you wish to prevail as to whether its justified or not. Burning tyre's around peoples necks (thousands on their own people) were just as horrific as anything the white oppressive government did. A lot of innocents were killed by both side and knowing someone who was born & raised there, but now lives in the UK, the level of black on black violence is apparently not getting any better. Also, even after all these years of black majority rule, the average poor black South African doesn't appear to be any better off than before.

Most politicians are in it for what they can get, it just varies in the level of corruption depending what part of the world you live in.

Bear in mind, t'other 'alf spent 10 years of his life there, from 12 to 22, so I cannot escape being reasonably conversant with the place. He still has family out there too.

The historical fact remains, though, that initial movements against apartheid were non-violewnt – this includes the ANC.

That changed when it became clear that the apartheid regime was not interested in any concessions whatsoever, and was entirely happy to kill even non-violent protestors.

In which case, how do you meet that behaviour if you do not wish to give up your struggle?

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:33 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I do realise that but it doesn't get away from the facts the ANC were a terrorist group that - under Mandela's leadership - murdered people...

Well, according to Maggie.

Sal Paradise wrote:

All in the struggle - but the idea he was a non-violent Gandhi type is a myth that should also be pointed out when the obituaries are written...

This is meaningless nonsense, Sal.

Nobody has ever claimed it.

The historical fact, however, is that the ANC – which was founded in 1912, six years before Mandela's birth – was originally a specifically non-violent organisation. That changed only when it became clear that the apartheid regime was not for changing by any non-violent means.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The question now, is SA a better place under the current regime - are the atrocities less than when say John Vorster was in charge?

That's a stupid question. Really, Sal, it is.

Those kaffirs – they should just have known their place, eh?

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:50 pm  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

Superficially perhaps, but Michael Moynihan offers up a for a more objective appraisal of El Comandante's Legacy.....


Chávez presided over a political epoch flush with money and lorded over a society riven by fear, deep political divisions, and ultraviolence. Consider the latest crime statistics from Observatorio Venezolano de la Violencia, which reckons that 2012 saw an astonishing 21,692 murders in the country—in a population of 29 million. Last year, I accompanied a Venezuelan journalist on his morning rounds at Caracas’s only morgue to count the previous night’s murders. As the number of dead ballooned, the Chávez regime simply stopped releasing murder statistics to the media.

All of this could have been predicted, and wasn’t particularly surprising from a president who believed that one must take the side of any enemy of the “empire.” That Zimbabwe’s dictator Robert Mugabe was a “freedom fighter,” or that Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko presided over “a model of a social state.” Saddam Hussein was a “brother,” Bashar al-Assad had the “same political vision” as the Bolivarian revolutionaries in Venezuela. He saw in the madness of Col. Gaddafi an often overlooked “brilliance” (“I ask God to protect the life of our brother Muammar Gaddafi”). The brutal terrorist Carlos the Jackal, who praised the 9/11 attacks from his French jail cell, was “a good friend.” He praised and supported FARC, the terrorist organization operating in neighboring Colombia. The list is endless.

His was a poisonous influence on the region, one rah-rahed by radical fools who desired to see a thumb jammed in America’s eye, while not caring a lick for its effect on ordinary Venezuelans. In his terrific new book (fortuitously timed to publish this week) Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela, The Guardian’s Rory Carroll summed up the legacy of Chávez’s Venezuela as “a land of power cuts, broken escalators, shortages, queues, insecurity, bureaucracy, unreturned calls, unfilled holes, uncollected garbage.” One could add to that list grinding poverty, massive corruption, censorship, and intimidation.

Which Michael Moynihan? The two I can find on Google wouldn't be able to construct a balanced analysis of anyone to the left of Mussolini.

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:10 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Well, according to Maggie.

This is meaningless nonsense, Sal.

Nobody has ever claimed it.

The historical fact, however, is that the ANC – which was founded some time before Mandela was born (in 1912, six years before Mandela was born) – was originally a specifically non-violent organisation. That changed only when it became clear that the apartheid regime was not for changing by any non-violent means.

That's a stupid question. Really, Sal, it is.

Those kaffirs, eh – they should just have known their place, eh?

It changed when the likes of Mandela took control - that should not be overlooked.

I ask again is the average life of a black in SA better now than it was despite the struggle - one thing is certain it is a far more violent society now than it was before the ANC took over. They may have the vote and equal rights but is their life better?

Re: RIP Hugo Chavez : Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:29 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

It changed when the likes of Mandela took control - that should not be overlooked...

You need to read some actual history.

Mandela rose to prominence in the ANC's 1952 Defiance Campaign and was elected president of the Transvaal ANC branch.

Although initially being committed to non-violent protest, he co-founded (note the 'co' bit there) Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961, leading a bombing campaign against government targets.

So what "control" of the ANC (as a whole) was this and when did it happen? I'll help.

Mandela was not the president of the ANC until 1991-1997. He was deputy president twice, between 1952 an 1958, and 1985 and 1991. He was never the secretary general of the ANC.

When MK was founded in 1961, the president of the ANC was Albert Luthuli. Deputy president was Oliver Tambo. Secretary general was Duma Nokwe.

I'm afraid that your "it changed when the likes of Mandela took control" is factually incorrect nonsense.

Incidentally, you are ignoring the opportunity to explain what you'd have done in similar circumstances – bow your head and tug your forelock, perhaps?

Sal Paradise wrote:

I ask again is the average life of a black in SA better now than it was despite the struggle - one thing is certain it is a far more violent society now than it was before the ANC took over. They may have the vote and equal rights but is their life better?

Well, there's certainly a black middle class that has emerged and developed, and is doing considerably better than before.

There are serious problems in South Africa, but it's fascinating that you consider that equal rights and access to the democratic process aren't really that important. Does this approach occur in all your thinking re politics, or just where black people are concerned? You're massively leaving yourself open to people interpreting what you've written as meaning that they should have known their place/were better off under the strong hand of the white man etc.