undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdragonwriter2y ago0 comments

> To be fair, Mandela did not get it while imprisoned and while the US and the UK were tacit supporters of the Apartheid regime.

To be even more fair, Mandela wasn’t the first anti-apartheid Nobel Peace Prize award, and Albert John Lutuli (awarded 1960) and Archbishop Tutu (awarded 1984) got it for fighting apartheid when the US and UK were tacit (active, of the regime if not the apartheid policy specifically, in 1960) supporters of the apartheid regime (Reagan’s reversal on his “constructive engagement” approach came inmediately after Archbishop Tutu's address to Congress and subsequent meeting with the President after the award.. And Dr. King (awarded 1964) got it for his opposition to the parallel policy in America.

0 comments

imjonse2y ago

You are right. Although those recipients were clearly in favor of non-violent fighting for human rights and were not explicitly anti-western or anti-US (the definitions of non-recipients this subthread started with) When Dr King began opposing the Vietnam war instead of simply fighting for equal rights at home he became a larger menace.

fauigerzigerk2y ago

The definition of non-recipients was never tied to violence. The examples given were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, all peaceful activists or journalists.

imjonse2y ago

Media made sure these three were tied to violence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

imjonse2y ago

fauigerzigerk2y ago

The definition of non-recipients was never tied to violence. The examples given were Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, all peaceful activists or journalists.

imjonse2y ago

Media made sure these three were tied to violence.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse