Quantcast

«

»

Dec 12 2013

Rios Thinks Mandela Should Have Been Imprisoned

Adding to the long list of wingnuts attacking Nelson Mandela after his death on specious grounds, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios said that putting Mandela in prison and into solitary confinement was absolutely the right thing to do. She lies in the process:

Nelson Mandela was placed in prison because of the violence that he did in the country of South Africa. Now you can argue, I guess, you can say it was worth it because we overthrew apartheid, I don’t know, is that really the way a victory should be won? Is this really a righteous cause? Is he really a saint for doing this? They talk about him being in solitary confinement, well, criminals are placed in solitary confinement, if you murder other people you lose your rights.

But Mandela did not murder anyone and he was not even charged with murdering anyone. He was on trial for sabotage and plotting the overthrow of the apartheid government, both of which he was guilty of by his own admission. The militant wing of the African National Congress that he created, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (known as the MK), did use sabotage against military targets, power plants and government installations, but with the explicit instruction that no one be killed. During his trial in 1964, Mandela explained why he formed the MK:

“At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:
‘The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.’

Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalise and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or take over the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer with violence.”

Again, I would ask Sandy Rios and every other right-wing critic of Mandela what they would have done in the same situation. For crying out loud, they’re the ones who talk endlessly about the necessity of owning guns to protect against a tyrannical government, but their logic only seems to apply to white Americans and only to the “tyranny” of giving health insurance to poor people.

24 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    matty1

    You could probably write with equal accuracy. “Sandy Rios walks across the room. She lies in the process”. Anyway you must admit it is good to see the AFA focussing on the interests of American families and not just spouting shit on every news story that comes along.

  2. 2
    Abby Normal

    Is this [overthrowing apartheid] really a righteous cause?

    *blink blink* That is a legitimate question in her mind? Just when I thought my opinion of her couldn’t get any lower, Rios digs into a whole new stratum of foulness.

  3. 3
    Avo, also nigelTheBold

    I don’t know, is that really the way a victory should be won?

    Yet she’ll praise the hell out of the “founding fathers,” who used murderous violence to secure freedom from a much less oppressive regime.

  4. 4
    Modusoperandi

    Fun Exercise:
    Swap “South Africa” for “The American Colonies”.

  5. 5
    D. C. Sessions

    Yet she’ll praise the hell out of the “founding fathers,” who used murderous violence to secure freedom from a much less oppressive regime.

    The situations are nothing like each other. It’s like black and white.

  6. 6
    ianeymeaney

    In the upper left hand corner of this page is an ad from The Liberty Web wanting you to see the last interview ever with Mandela, conducted six hours after his death! I wonder how fast he is spinning in his grave right now.

  7. 7
    andrewryan

    Douglas Wilson’s at it as well:
    http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/photogenic-lies.html#comment-45957

    “Although Mandela was a thug and a bad man, he was plainly a shrewd thug. ”

    That’s the best Pastor Wilson can say about Mandela – he was a bad man and a thug, but at least he was shrewd.

  8. 8
    caseloweraz

    D.C. Sessions: The situations are nothing like each other. It’s like black and white.

    Would you like your Internet gift-wrapped, or shall I just send it in plain packaging?

  9. 9
    Chiroptera

    Look, the apartheid government of South Africa was willing to play along with the West and help the West achieve their foreign policy goals. What justification could Mandela possibly have to fight against that?

  10. 10
    caseloweraz

    Andrewryan: That’s the best Pastor Wilson can say about Mandela – he was a bad man and a thug, but at least he was shrewd.

    Yes, he shrewdly blessed them that cursed him, did good to them that hated him, and prayed for them which despitefully used him. We can’t have a Christian pastor endorsing that sort of thing.

    (Grammar here follows the KJV.)

  11. 11
    Artor

    I did a spit-take when I read this line;

    … because we overthrew apartheid…

    “We,” Sandy? Really? What exactly did you do to fight against apartheid? I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m going to guess something between “jack shit,” and “Cheering wildly from the sidelines in favor of apartheid.” Am I close?

  12. 12
    snoeman

    Artor @ #11:

    ““We,” Sandy? Really? What exactly did you do to fight against apartheid? I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m going to guess something between “jack shit,” and “Cheering wildly from the sidelines in favor of apartheid.” Am I close?”

    To be fair, there was nothing preventing her from doing both of those things simultaneously.

  13. 13
    noastronomer

    Artor beat me to it. What’s this “we” shit?

    Mike.

  14. 14
    Modusoperandi

    Look, the Right is (and was) for the end of apartheid. They’re just against how it was done (and who did it [*wink wink*]).

  15. 15
    marcus

    D C Sessions @ 5

    Yet she’ll praise the hell out of the “founding fathers,” who used murderous violence to secure freedom from a much less oppressive regime.

    The situations are nothing like each other. It’s like black and white.

    Maybe you would like driving on the wrong side of the road and eating boiled meat but is that really “freedom”?
    I don’t think so.

  16. 16
    matty1

    Ok firstly, left is the correct side of the road, second we do not boil meat unless you count casseroles in which case you just need to taste a good one.

  17. 17
    marcus

    matty @ 16 I try not to let reality ruin my long-cherished misconceptions.

  18. 18
    Modusoperandi

    It should be noted that Canada, being in between Britain and the USA, splits the difference by driving in the middle of the road.

  19. 19
    marcus

    Well that explains it! I just didn’t realize we had so many Canadian drivers here.

  20. 20
    D. C. Sessions

    It should be noted that Canada, being in between Britain and the USA, splits the difference by driving in the middle of the road.

    And India, being opposite Canada, solves it by having traffic driving on both sides of the road in both directions.

    Unlike Modus, BTW, I’m not making this up.

  21. 21
    Moggie

    I don’t think you really “drive” a dog sled, do you?

  22. 22
    lpetrich

    Hmmm… what does Sandy Rios think about:

    Tarring and feathering disliked officials
    Destroying tea shipments
    Rebellion against a legitimate ruler
    Making large numbers of that ruler’s supporters flee to Canada

    All because of being taxed without being represented in Parliament or whatever.

  23. 23
    smrnda

    As others have said, what about the violent uprising in the colonies in North America? I suspect the difference is that it was white people who owned property protesting something involving taxes, since *INITIATE FORCE! TAX! THEFT AT THE POINT OF GOVERNMENT GUN!* is just so terribly evil, but segregation isn’t so bad.

  24. 24
    SC (Salty Current), OM

    Again, I would ask Sandy Rios and every other right-wing critic of Mandela what they would have done in the same situation.

    They would have been the French columnists who called Resistance saboteurs traitors and murderers.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site