dont_do_it_doug. Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 You seem rather angry? I don't think I've said much about my views on Mandela, I'm merely defending the right of others to express their opinion. Forcing your opinion on others is rather fascist do you not think? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 You could accurately, and more appropriately call him a freedom fighter. I do have a hang up about the misappropriation of the word terrorist, it does him disservice, I feel. It seems strange that people object to the word terrorist. What it seems to show is that since it has been appropriated by the state and media it has gradually merged with synonyms which mean unjustified murderer and the meaning has shifted in people's minds so they can't accept that it could apply to someone we are now invited to venerate. This process of the bending of language is very important in the propaganda of conflict and resolution. The absolute determination of the state to consistently deny that recent acts of terror had anything to do with foreign policy has managed to shift the public perception of the meaning of the word away from its accepted usage and towards a notion of motiveless, irrational murder. This is no accident. This is why we struggle to apply it to Mandela because as always, in the post-struggle era he is now framed as part of the solution rather than the problem, and the language and perceptions have shifted accordingly. They say that the first casualty of war is truth but it is more likely to be language. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 You could accurately, and more appropriately call him a freedom fighter. I do have a hang up about the misappropriation of the word terrorist, it does him disservice, I feel. It seems strange that people object to the word terrorist. What it seems to show is that since it has been appropriated by the state and media it has gradually merged with synonyms which mean unjustified murderer and the meaning has shifted in people's minds so they can't accept that it could apply to someone we are now invited to venerate. This process of the bending of language is very important in the propaganda of conflict and resolution. The absolute determination of the state to consistently deny that recent acts of terror had anything to do with foreign policy has managed to shift the public perception of the meaning of the word away from its accepted usage and towards a notion of motiveless, irrational murder. This is no accident. This is why we struggle to apply it to Mandela because as always, in the post-struggle era he is now framed as part of the solution rather than the problem, and the language and perceptions have shifted accordingly. They say that the first casualty of war is truth but it is more likely to be language. "Words [language] offer the means to meaning and through them the enunciation of truth". V. ^ Very good post, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 You could accurately, and more appropriately call him a freedom fighter. I do have a hang up about the misappropriation of the word terrorist, it does him disservice, I feel. It seems strange that people object to the word terrorist. What it seems to show is that since it has been appropriated by the state and media it has gradually merged with synonyms which mean unjustified murderer and the meaning has shifted in people's minds so they can't accept that it could apply to someone we are now invited to venerate. This process of the bending of language is very important in the propaganda of conflict and resolution. The absolute determination of the state to consistently deny that recent acts of terror had anything to do with foreign policy has managed to shift the public perception of the meaning of the word away from its accepted usage and towards a notion of motiveless, irrational murder. This is no accident. This is why we struggle to apply it to Mandela because as always, in the post-struggle era he is now framed as part of the solution rather than the problem, and the language and perceptions have shifted accordingly. They say that the first casualty of war is truth but it is more likely to be language.Language is in constant shift, it is fluid. Yes, it's dictated by the media, and more so kids, possibly, but it's not rigid. You have to decide whether currently, 'terrorist' is the most accurate and appropriate term to use when describing Mandela. Although it's semantics, I feel compelled to argue it, and I feel strongly about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2013 It's not an argument of semantics. As I said before, freedom fighter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive. Mandela was both. He fought for freedoms and for a time used terrorist methods to do so. Calling him a terrorist simply describes the activity he engaged in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Just like every state army, who we never hear referenced as terrorists. I do understand terrorist isn't automatically always bad, but when there is a better more expressive word, why get hung up on one that has confused meaning. Freedom fighter is a better term as it distinguishes the cause as popular and just, as opposed to potentially a murderous psychotic fringe grouping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 It's not an argument of semantics. As I said before, freedom fighter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive. Mandela was both. He fought for freedoms and for a time used terrorist methods to do so. Calling him a terrorist simply describes the activity he engaged in.What utter drivel, do you know what semantics means? This is not an argument of semantics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Just like every state army, who we never hear referenced as terrorists. I do understand terrorist isn't automatically always bad, but when there is a better more expressive word, why get hung up on one that has confused meaning. Freedom fighter is a better term as it distinguishes the cause as popular and just, as opposed to potentially a murderous psychotic fringe grouping. Because those words describe different things. Edited December 8, 2013 by Chindie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 anyway, moving on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 8, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 8, 2013 It's not an argument of semantics. As I said before, freedom fighter and terrorist are not mutually exclusive. Mandela was both. He fought for freedoms and for a time used terrorist methods to do so. Calling him a terrorist simply describes the activity he engaged in. What utter drivel, do you know what semantics means? This is not an argument of semantics? It only becomes an argument of semantics when someone doesn't know what they're talking about and makes it into an argument of semantics. But as you appear quite an aggressive chap, I'll let your terrorism () win for now, as I've got work bright and early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Second time I've been called aggressive! I'm really not! I promise. However... On this point, which is a point of semantics, I cannot accept the word terrorist. Edited December 8, 2013 by Kingfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) . Edited December 8, 2013 by chrisp65 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 8, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 8, 2013 PLO - terrorists or freedom fighters?The answer is obviously both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 My personal hero, for me the greatest human being that ever lived, Mohandas K. Gandhi, pursued a policy of non-violent, civil disobedience. He embodies the true meaning of the title 'freedom fighter'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 PLO - terrorists or freedom fighters?The answer is obviously both Not so obvious really. People who hijack planes, with innocents on board, are not freedom fighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) My personal hero, for me the greatest human being that ever lived, Mohandas K. Gandhi, pursued a policy of non-violent, civil disobedience. He embodies the true meaning of the title 'freedom fighter'. Agreed, although even then people that use violence can still be described as freedom fighters, the difference between them and terrorists is the targets they select. If groups attack military targets of occupation or agents of a repressive state they are legitimate freedom fighters, for example the French Resistance or elements of the Free Syrian Army. If such attacks deliberately target civilians by design through bombing, hostage taking etc. then they are terrorists. That would cover groups like the IRA, PLO, AQ or in this case the military wing of the ANC - led by Mandela. Those terrorists may feel that the end justifies the means and unconnected individuals may subjectively share that view, the problem then becomes the moral implication for the view of one's self. "I believe the cause is just and I believe I am good person, therefore they cannot be terrorists or by implication that would label me as a supporter of terrorism". Well to coin a phrase, 'if you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas'. EDIT: Just to be absolutely clear I believe Apartheid was self evidently abhorent and in Mandela's shoes would have been prepared to do some pretty bad things to bring it down. I would though have to accept those actions made me a terrorist because as Chindie put it earlier, it's about honesty. Edited December 9, 2013 by Awol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 My personal hero, for me the greatest human being that ever lived, Mohandas K. Gandhi, pursued a policy of non-violent, civil disobedience. He embodies the true meaning of the title 'freedom fighter'.didnt realise it was a competition or the sole preserve of one great man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 When people say the greatest and define it with a single person its time to look at history a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts