The UCT - Cecil John Rhodes Statue Thread

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,708
The ideals of the armed struggle where to target state apparatus, security and defence forces. Even McBride's bombing of Magoo's bar was supposed be a target where SAP members gathered. Zondo's target was entirely civilian.

The same ANC said his actions were "understandable", even though they condemned them
 

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,607
The same ANC said his actions were "understandable", even though they condemned them

Why is attacking civilians understandable? Collateral damage seems to be an accepted part of conflict, targeting civilians deliberately put you in a different category entirely.
 

ngwe23

Executive Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
5,237
My point stands. You think it's okay to honour a tyrant that butchered countless people, including everyone that disagreed with his empire-building. But it's not okay when the white guy did it and he's evil because of it.

What Shaka and CJR did are vastly different. Notice that people are not anti-CJR because he sought to spread his influence into Africa, or his business skills for that matter. No. But it is the utter disdain that he exhibited towards blacks. He referred to black people as the "most despicable specimen of human being" and "barbarians" simple because they dared have a different skin colour. That is pathetic. Shake did no such thing. He did not actively seek to oppress and entire race. His mission was simple-get more power which any military ruler would do.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,035
Sorry to break it to you, but that is how empires were built, there are many "great" leaders littered through history that did that. But still you missed the key part of my post as to why CJR bothers ME...

Yeah, I get it. Bad when the white guy did it, cool when the black guy did it, because 'lol history'.

As a beneficiary of those actions I remind you "one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter". Maybe start the umpteenth thread to discuss tactics used in the armed struggle in response to the Apartheid government?

Yawning gulf between someone like Steve Biko and someone that intentionally blew up civilians. He planted a bomb at a shopping centre, ffs.
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,708
Tactics forbidden by international treaty?

In response to a government that bore no such inclination to think of international norms, human rights obligations...

I think we are going to go around in circles here. I've stated my opinion enough I think
 

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,193
In response to a government that bore no such inclination to think of international norms, human rights obligations...

I think we are going to go around in circles here. I've stated my opinion enough I think

So you believe it's fine to target innocents to make your point against another more legitimate target?
Isis wants you.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,035
What Shaka and CJR did are vastly different. Notice that people are not anti-CJR because he sought to spread his influence into Africa, or his business skills for that matter. No. But it is the utter disdain that he exhibited towards blacks. He referred to black people as the "most despicable specimen of human being" and "barbarians" simple because they dared have a different skin colour. That is pathetic. Shake did no such thing. He did not actively seek to oppress and entire race. His mission was simple-get more power which any military ruler would do.

He actively oppressed (or killed if they resisted) everyone that opposed him.

By your (and sox63's reasoning) you wouldn't have an issue with Rhodes if he killed a boatload more black folk instead of saying nasty stuff about them. :wtf:

If we're going to do away with honorifics to historical figures that committed injustice it should be done across the board, not in this one-sided, race-based manner.
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,708
And you agree with the Brainless ANC despots, whatever those corrupt criminals say must be valid and true?

You're not too bright I assume? I was replying to a post about actions being against ANC policy and pointing out the ANC's stance on that case...
 

sox63

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
8,708
He actively oppressed (or killed if they resisted) everyone that opposed him.

By your (and sox63's reasoning) you wouldn't have an issue with Rhodes if he killed a boatload more black folk instead of saying nasty stuff about them. :wtf:

If we're going to do away with honorifics to historical figures that committed injustice it should be done across the board, not in this one-sided, race-based manner.

Seriously dude, from his legislation you deduce that the most he did was "say nasty stuff"?
 

EtienneK

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
3,985
When Shaka's mother died [1]:

According to Donald Morris, in this mourning period, Shaka ordered that no crops should be planted during the following year, no milk (the basis of the Zulu diet at the time) was to be used, and any woman who became pregnant was to be killed along with her husband. At least 7,000 people who were deemed to be insufficiently grief-stricken were executed, although the killing was not restricted to humans: cows were slaughtered so that their calves would know what losing a mother felt like.

What a hero!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaka#Death_and_succession
 

Seriously

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
16,596
You're not too bright I assume? I was replying to a post about actions being against ANC policy and pointing out the ANC's stance on that case...

Maybe not but I have even a lesser of an opinion about your "brightness" based on your sudden hate of Rhodes. What a fart of a conundrum.

Again you must be a continual martyr seeing white skinned people everyday reminding you of the past history of apartheid.
 

ngwe23

Executive Member
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
5,237
He actively oppressed (or killed if they resisted) everyone that opposed him.

By your (and sox63's reasoning) you wouldn't have an issue with Rhodes if he killed a boatload more black folk instead of saying nasty stuff about them. :wtf:

If we're going to do away with honorifics to historical figures that committed injustice it should be done across the board, not in this one-sided, race-based manner.

It says a lot about you if what CJR did amounts to "saying nasty stuff".
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,035
Seriously dude, from his legislation you deduce that the most he did was "say nasty stuff"?

No, obviously not. He implemented nasty stuff, too. I'm not really arguing about Rhodes since I think we're mostly in agreement there.

The stickler is I still find it mind boggling that can shrug and say 'meh' when it comes to the horrors of what Shaka did, though.
 

Flanders

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
14,742
What's the point in arguing? It is, and always has been painfully obvious as to the thinking and chips on shoulders of some segments of our local population. Double standards and hypocrisy from day one of our failed experiment.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,035
It says a lot about you if what CJR did amounts to "saying nasty stuff".

:rolleyes:

Yeah, just like it says a lot about you (and sox) that you just go 'lol history' when Shaka did this:

According to Donald Morris, in this mourning period, Shaka ordered that no crops should be planted during the following year, no milk (the basis of the Zulu diet at the time) was to be used, and any woman who became pregnant was to be killed along with her husband. At least 7,000 people who were deemed to be insufficiently grief-stricken were executed, although the killing was not restricted to humans: cows were slaughtered so that their calves would know what losing a mother felt like.
 
Top