Tony Leon slams FW de Klerk Foundation for apartheid comment

wombling

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
447
What was done to the apartheid government? The NP got defeated in a free and fair election and they died a natural death after that, you are free to mobilize and do the same to the ANC, no need to wait for some referendum.
So Mandela was referring to the political pressure the ANC put on the old NP government along with their terrorist acts. Blowing up churches, bombing cars etc. If you think the NP just decided to give up to a democracy you're dreaming. It was a negotiated transition as a consequence of international pressure, as well as terrorist behaviour that the ANC conducted. Perhaps you should find out why Mandela was jailed. It wasn't because he was a peaceful loving and all round nice guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 

Thorium

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
279
"I agree with the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation that this is not the time to quibble about the degrees of unacceptability of apartheid. It was totally unacceptable," he said.
What a statesman.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
27,049
So Mandela was referring to the political pressure the ANC put on the old NP government along with their terrorist acts. Blowing up churches, bombing cars etc. If you think the NP just decided to give up to a democracy you're dreaming. It was a negotiated transition as a consequence of international pressure, as well as terrorist behaviour that the ANC conducted. Perhaps you should find out why Mandela was jailed. It wasn't because he was a peaceful loving and all round nice guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Was their election defeat also negotiated? It's a free country, if you no longer want the ANC you mobilize and vote them out, it's the luxury we never had when the National Party was ruling this country with an iron fist, you are in a very privileged position, appreciate it and never take it for granted.
 

wombling

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
447
Was their election defeat also negotiated? It's a free country, if you no longer want the ANC you mobilize and vote them out, it's the luxury we never had when the National Party was ruling this country with an iron fist, you are in a very privileged position, appreciate it and never take it for granted.
How is institutional racism of apartheid any different to what's happening today?

Please don't expect me to believe I am privileged to have BEE or AA. How do you know my position or if I take it for granted or not? Do you know if I had family blown up in churches or what my losses have been? What do you assume about my life?

The argument here is about a country and the current climate of racism including crimes against humanity, not me or my personal situation. Mostly I was commenting on stupid things presidents say.

In particular Mandela said it was ok to blow up churches and cars for your cause. Where is the outrage over this?

Nonetheless, the point I am trying to make is that presidents and politicians say stupid things and this often prevents real action being taken on matters which actually matter. Who cares what FW thinks about apartheid? His opinion does not shape the future anymore because he doesn't influence change.
 

Thorium

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
279
Good with words.
Not admitting anything but agreeing with everyone
Perhaps yes. But understand what his objectives were, whether they were noble, and perhaps most importantly (are you listening ANC amateurs, this is important) whether he achieved them or not.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
22,291
Presided over and commanded the deaths of thousands. Only removed from terrorist watch lists in 2008.
Was De Klerk?
I disputed your comment about him being "internationally .... terrorist". Only the US listed him as such and it was his association with the communists that led to his name finding his way to the list. De Klerk was an ally with the US.

People suspected of spreading communism were abducted and never returned. Some "jumped off buildings" while others disappeared without a trace.
 

Thorium

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
279
I disputed your comment about him being "internationally .... terrorist". Only the US listed him as such and it was his association with the communists that led to his name finding his way to the list. De Klerk was an ally with the US.

People suspected of spreading communism were abducted and never returned. Some "jumped off buildings" while others disappeared without a trace.
changing the goalposts, my response was to add Mandela to the obviously short list:
They have no issue with Zupta enjoying his loot and the rest of his privileges.
 

thechamp

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
27,049
Presided over and commanded the deaths of thousands. Only removed from terrorist watch lists in 2008.
Was De Klerk?
Because the impartiality of the US is unquestionable in such matters, they are still happily trading guns with Saudi Arabia after what the Saudis did to Kashoggi and their human rights record.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
22,291
Or Mandela, the internationally acknowledged and acclaimed terrorist.
Mine was to the post above, which in essence is a blatant lie.
changing the goalposts, my response was to add Mandela to the obviously short list:
About de Klerk, he's no saint and will never reveal the past. I respect him for his part in seeing to a peaceful transition. He was part of the old system and will never reveal the secrets.
 
Last edited:

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
22,291
No it isn't, but it somewhat resembles the integrity of many of your own posts, including this one.
You can attack me all you want but that post isn't truthful. He was listed by the US and not "internationally" as you claim. He was never tried/convicted for terrorism contrary to propaganda being shared.
 

Sollie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
6,785
People suspected of spreading communism were abducted and never returned. Some "jumped off buildings" while others disappeared without a trace.
Let's not forget that people who didn't support the ANC etc were similarly intimidated, killed, abducted and never returned.

It was a time of war. There were no leaders that were angels.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
22,291
Let's not forget that people who didn't support the ANC etc were similarly intimidated, killed, abducted and never returned.

It was a time of war. There were no leaders that were angels.
I don't dispute that. I was just trying to dispel the myth about the Nats of the time.
 

yebocan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
10,745
Separate but Sequel: The Eternal Return of FW de Klerk
He’s back. He never left.

T
he redaction of the historical record began the moment apartheid ended — indeed before apartheid ended: official history in this country is a palimpsest written over on endless occasions. (Remember: the National Intelligence Agency destroyed 44 tonnes of documents at the close of the ancien regime, a black hole filled mostly with revisioning, mythologising and Nando’s adverts.)


So perhaps it is to be welcomed that, during the recent State of the Nation Theatrical Extravaganza, FW de Klerk was rolled out on history’s rusted gurney and defibrillated before a yawning nation. We need not go into the specifics of this event, which has been covered extensively elsewhere. But let’s just say that this was a Julius Malema/Economic Freedom Fighters gambit that paid massive dividends, but nonetheless begged an urgent question for those hoping for a bathroom break: why bother exhuming the old frog now, given that he’s been a regular guest at SONA for years, and was hardly a wallflower when it came to decrying the corruption and mismanagement of the Zuma era?

He has never shut up and gone away. Rather, he’s blabbed his way around the world and coined it.

Before we answer any questions, let’s indulge in a recap. As you are likely aware, the 84-year-old former State President co-won a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in dismantling the apartheid state and helping to negotiate its transplacement. I use the term transplacement because it describes how the interests of white elites were shipped wholesale from the previous regime into the Constitution that would follow the “first free and fair” elections in 1994. In other words, elements of apartheid are encoded into the DNA of our lofty, widely hailed and progressive constitutional framework.

As the academics Michael Albertus and Victor Menaldo note in their seminal Authoritarianism and the Elite Origins of Democracy:

“During apartheid, [South Africa’s] black citizens clamoured for the right to vote, for access to land, for access to education and jobs, and for freedom from institutionalised, race-based discrimination. Yet when democracy finally came in 1994, it was not necessarily forged by the people: indeed, during the transition process, the outgoing apartheid regime was largely in the driver’s seat. The first five years of democracy were governed by a transitional power-sharing agreement in which the newly empowered African National Congress (ANC) agreed that the outgoing apartheid National Party (NP) would be part of the government, despite a lack of popular support. Cabinets were to make consensus decisions. […] In short, the NP basically had veto power over the institutional design of the country.

“Because South African democracy was not created by the people, it is not governed for the people.” (Emphasis mine.)

In other words, FW de Klerk basically made South Africa. So it’s worth asking: stripped of the marketing and the myth-making, who is he really? And why is he still breaking news?

***

Frederik Willem de Klerk was born in Johannesburg in 1936, trained at Potchefstroom University as a lawyer (what else?), and began his political career with the NP in 1972. He was a member in good standing of the Broederbond, the Afrikaner secret society to which he was invited “at the unusually young age of 27”, according to Ivor Wilkins and Hans Strydom in The Super Afrikaners. He entered John Vorster’s reshuffled Cabinet in 1978 and never left, holding the successive portfolios of Social Welfare and Pensions, Post and Telecommunications, Mining (God help us), Ministry of the Interior (FFS) and, finally, Education. We should get this out of the way quickly: FW was not an anti-apartheid activist. He protected and upheld some of the regime’s most uncompromising ideals, especially in the education ministry, until very late in the game (although he oversaw the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act when he held the Minister of the Interior).

In the succession battle that followed PW Botha’s resignation as leader of the NP, FW squeaked past Finance Minister Barend du Plessis by a Ramaphosa-like margin of eight votes. The year was 1989, and **** was getting seriously real out on the streets. Unlike many of his fellow Broederbond members, De Klerk could count — the state’s balance sheet was appropriately blood-red. If De Klerk held a coherent ideology, he’s what we’d now call a neoliberal, which was not exactly commonplace in an Afrikaner Economic Empowerment movement that shut out competition by design.
 

surface

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
7,898
I don't dispute that. I was just trying to dispel the myth about the Nats of the time.
There is this "war" narrative being embedded everywhere. It was not apartheid but war and that absolves everyone of everything. It is quite clever strategy really. If one repeats enough, it is likely to be believable. Earlier it used to be "Oh - we didn't know it was happening or we knew something was happening but we were also scared just like everyone"
 
Top