U.S. media coverage of Nelson Mandela’s legacy celebrates the late icon’s forgiveness. They mean his ability to reconcile with some of the leaders of South Africa’s apartheid years, of course; but one area that gets relatively little attention is US support for the racist government Mandela fought against.
As we noted, the CIA’s role in helping to capture Mandela barely registered in the week’s media remembrances (FAIR Media Advisory, 12/10/13). Ignoring history is one thing; re-writing history is another. On NBC Nightly News (12/7/13), anchor Lester Holt discussed the student uprisings in Soweto that were violently suppressed:
The uprising would claim hundreds of lives before it was over. But it would also severely damage the apartheid government and rally world opinion against it.
It’s true that the shocking images from that day moved many people around the world. But what came next was bizarre; a clip from a speech by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, months after those student protests:
Our own self- interest is in an Africa that lives in peace and racial harmony and our abiding commitment to peace and world order permit us no other course.
Viewers will be forgiven for thinking that the violence moved the US to act against apartheid, with Henry Kissinger leading the way.
That is, of course, not what happened. That Kissinger speech came right before his trip to Africa; according to diplomatic cables he was encouraged to meet with anti-apartheid activists; apparently he did not.
The Reagan administration then pursued a policy of ‘constructive engagement’ with the racist government. Yes, apartheid was defeated. But the US government was on the wrong side of that fight for far too long, whatever corporate media may try to suggest.
It’s not that talk of political differences is completely missing from the US media. Why, just look at this Washington Post headline (12/10/13): “In Life, Nelson Mandela Often Irritated U.S.” Read the lead sentence carefully:
One of the ironies of the praise offered by world leaders for Nelson Mandela at a state memorial service Tuesday is that the former South African president frequently irritated the United States and others with his policy positions and his loyalty to longtime supporters such as Cuba and Libya.
So apparently it is ironic that “world leaders” praise Mandela because he “irritated the United States and others.” The piece is actually just about the United States being irritated, with one reference to Israel. As the report explains, countries like Cuba and Libya were staunch supporters of Mandela’s ANC and the fight against apartheid; he stood by those governments after he was released from prison. There’s nothing particularly ironic about that.
A more accurate portrayal came from Greg Myre at the NPR website (12/9/13), the point of which is conveyed pretty clear in the headline: “Now Praised By Presidents, Mandela Wasn’t Always Admired In The U.S.” He pointed out:
In 1981, when apartheid was still in full force, President Ronald Reagan told CBS that he supported the South African government because it was “a country that has stood by us in every war we’ve ever fought; a country that, strategically, is essential to the free world in its production of minerals.”
The US and allies may have been “irritated” by some of Mandela’s foreign policy stances
But they were quite pleased with the ANC’s domestic embrace of neoliberal economic policy.
It goes without saying that the working class and poor of South Africa, of all races
Have not been.
Damn those Soweto students, responsible (according to NBC) for hundreds of deaths: “The uprising would claim hundreds of lives before it was over.”
One can only infer that there was no state repression of the uprisings, at least none worth mentioning that claimed lives. Such a benevolent regime apartheid South Africa must have been, at least in NBC’s eyes.
In the novel, “1984, ” the Memory Hole took care of all that pesky history.
In 2013, the major media journalists do it for us. This is not a comforting thought
And let us not forget, no US or Israeli leader, until today, has asked Mandela and the South African people forgiveness for their active role in defending and maintaining the apartheid regime in Pretoria“.
http://rehmat1.com/2013/12/13/mandela-was-neither-terrorist-begin-nor-jesus/
I commented in an earlier blog that I knew very little of either South Africa or Nelson Mandela. That is true. But I know where my instincts would lead me if I had the time to investigate the man and his country. World leaders now canonize St. Nelson. (Even michael e loves the man!) To me that’s a sure sign that the average life of a black–and white–South African has probably changed little. So bear with me and let me speculate. Let’s come back to the US. I believe the 1% (I use the expression symbolically) is very happy to allow a redistribution of wealth, that is, amongst the working class, that is, so long as their own wealth and power is not subject to attack. So, yes, we do see a greater integration of the US work force in terms of gender and race, They’re happy to embrace the Civil Rights movement so long as nothing really changes. However, the real earning power of working people of any race and gender has deteriorated in the last 40 years and the 1 % has grown disproportionately more wealthy. And so back to South Africa. I suspect the white power structure regardless of this or that black politician, this or that wealthy black businessman, has not really changed. And so world leaders and former enemies are now very willing to extol Mandela’s virtues as a pacifist–just as they are King’s–so long as nothing has really changed. What I don’t know is the role Mandela played in all this after his release from prison. So yes charge me with ignorance, but I suspect he was no John Brown, no Frederick Douglass, no MLKing, and no Malcolm X, I’ve read that he used sports to re-unify the country. Wow. Does that mean he used sports to re-unify working people so long as the real power and wealth was not attacked? sounds like smoke and mirrors to me. Well, that’s my thesis. I will investigate this matter. Maybe I will find out I’m wrong.
This country has a long history of accepting on some level far too many regimes that are in contrast to our own beliefs.This past week our president shook hands with the blood stained mitts of a castro.We are at this very minute dealing with the likes of the Taliban.China…..Iran…….Russia,Saudi Arabia, and many countries in Africa,and Asia that do not reflect any of our values.We left Vietnam and the Cambodia holocaust led to 3 million dead.We fled Africa and a million died.We soon will further disengage from the middle east and Im sure let the bloodbath commence.Yes we dealt with South Africa.Even helped them to track people who espoused violent insurrection, and overthrow of a sovereign country.Half or more of the countries in South America are guilty of human rights violations.We still deal with them.Its funny the people who want it both ways.They want us to disengage And set none of our moral values upon anyone else in the world.On the other hand they want us to act to stop injustice.
@JB I suggest that as a start you look up Mandela on Wikipedia.
Tom886: Good suggestion to start with Wikipedia. In my estimation a sad history. In the 1950’s Mandela demands nationalization of key elements of the private sector such as the banks, land reform, and a redistribution of wealth. As president he asks the wealthy of the world at their discretion to mind the poor. During his presidency, he engaged nor proposed no substantial reform for a fear of a loss of foreign investment capital. I guess he knew his master’s voice. So yeah, let him reunite the country through sports. Let hin flirt with Castro and Khadaffi. Let him plead to the wealthy for a kinder, more gentler world–you know, compassionate capitalism. He reminds me of sort of Reagan-like figure in his later years: a grandfatherly figurehead with no real power; others call the shots. I suspect he became the face of the “new” South Africa. No, I understand that Wikipedia is not the last word on Mandela, but I suspect I prefer the Mandela of his younger years.
Surely Peter, you don’t expect the media to remember all the bad things US government has committed? That would certainly make it hard for us to canonize Reagan and romanticize the CIA?
As Michael e says those would be in contrast our own beliefs. The delusional belief that we are the shining city on the hill!!!