I'm of two minds. Is everything about 'campaigns'? Marketing? What was the discussion in Cook's office?
"Mandela died."
"Didn't we use him in 'Think Different?' Does Marketing still have rights to his image?"
"Let's update the homepage for a week with a memorial, then resume the holiday theme."
Corporations Are People, Too. They have a heart? Show it to me. I don't believe it.
Remembering Jobs is one thing: he personified Apple.
Mandela spent 27 years in prison for his cause.
No comparison, hipsters. Now Mandela becomes a t-shirt image, like Einstein or Che Guevara.
I was living in St Thomas VI when Mandela was released. The whole island was insanely jubilant. It was a big deal. Flags stating "Mandela Freed" flew everywhere and the sound of car horns was deafening.
Apartheid was falling. He meant something real to the oppressed and underprivileged.
Tossing his image onto a marketing webpage trivializes his noble accomplishments and reduces him to a meme.
He's not a 64GB iPad - he was a great human being.
I think it's inappropriate for Apple to casually use Mandela's image. His past and his ex-wife's past are enough to taint use of his visage for any promotional or political purpose. What's next, heroic poses of Mao on the home page to pander to China?
In addition, once violence is accepted as a solution, then any kind of violent opposition for any perceived oppression is justifiable. Racists would feel justified, spouse abusers would feel justified, etc.
Divisive political figures should be off the table for Apple.
I can think of numerous situations where killers are not murderers.
Murder is a specific legal term. Here in the U.S. it typically means UNLAWFUL killing (as opposed to something like self-defense or war) with malice aforethought. That's part of what distinguished murder from manslaughter, for example. Then there are things like vehicular manslaughter, negligent homicide, and the like.
On top of that, you have plenty of situations where killing isn't murder because it isn't unlawful. Self-defense and wartime being prime examples. The NAZI soldiers who killed combatants in the line of combat were not murderers. The NAZIs who took part in mass murder of civilians at places like Auschwitz, on the other hand, had committed murder.
So, killing != murder.
Now we can argue all day about the actions Mandela took, the situation in which those actions were taken, and the legal and moral implications of a someone fighting for freedom against an oppressive regime, and what is and what is not acceptable behavior.
However, what we CAN'T argue about is the fact that Mandela played a large role in freeing a huge number of people from a painful, dehumanizing, and brutal regime. We CAN'T argue that for many, as evidenced by the last few days, he has served as an inspiration.
Google "Winnie Mandela necklace" (caution, brutal horrific imagery)
Both are true. Mandela was a violent revolutionary and a Communist. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to repel the Russians.
The upshot from the US viewpoint should be that whenever we allow our military and politicians to interfere and involve us in the affairs of other nations, no good ever comes of it.
Nope.
The USA, The Vatican, The West, all started over various despicable act of violence.
Violence with an objective end, to end violence, depending on the case.
Bin Laden violence is to achieve what?
Comparing bin Laden to Mandela, then the West violent past ( including the various holocaust it caused in the southern hemisphere ) should be put in the same level as Bin Laden’s.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/161092/apple-honors-nelson-mandela-on-company-homepage/40#post_2444399" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>SpamSandwich</strong> <a href="/t/161092/apple-honors-nelson-mandela-on-company-homepage/40#post_2444399"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a>
I think it's inappropriate for Apple to casually use Mandela's image.</div>
Then it's a good thing they are not casually using it.
Going through this thread is depressing. Reminds me of how many people refuse to acknowledge greatness. There's a reason Mandela is a hugely inspiration figure for the entire world, why there's been such an outpouring of grief over his death. He was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid in Africa, which involved extreme repression. The man wasn't perfect- he never claimed to be- and yes, violence was used when it was deemed effective. There's a reason that even his former enemies loved him in the end. But I wonder, if violence isn't justified for such a case- when others are stepping on your throats and stripping you of your rights, then when the **** is it? Whats interesting to me is that the same people here calling him a murderer are the same people who justify the invasion of other countries by the US, using specious and ridiculous argumentation.
The least you can do, when someone who has accomplished so much good in his life dies, and who millions of people admire and take inspiration from, is to shut the **** up and have the decency to not expose your ugly and twisted views to all.
As I recall, Martin Luther King took a stand that did not involve murdering others.
Let me ask! Have you ever been oppressed because of the color of your skin? Also, how many of those which walked with Dr. King suffer atrocities? Do you know? Sometimes you must relinquish your civilities to be understood that you would prefer to be treated as equal as those before you.
"Should not be used at all" because you hold an extreme, minority view towards Mandela that is not shared by many, and who most people in real life would be repulsed to hear. Right. You've been hellbent in this thread as defining Mandela as nothing more than a murderer and a communist, that should speak volumes about how worthwhile your opinion is, and the fact that you have the gall like to dictate to Apple what they "should" do in this situation is hilarious. You clearly don't hold a shred of context, historical perspective, or objectivity in your unbalanced, petty, and childish views that serve only to pick and choose what you want to see in order to demonize someone great.
The least you can do, when someone who has accomplished so much good in his life dies, and who millions of people admire and take inspiration from, is to shut the **** up and have the decency to not expose your ugly and twisted views to all, like the useless keyboard warriors you are.
I wouldn't put it as strongly as you, but I'm in your corner. So often we see little people aspiring to be great, believing that they will achieve greatness by making posts that tear down those who truly are great.
He was obliged to, obliged by the West terrorists, those who protected the criminal and holocaust driven regime which was apartheid.
ANC was a party, a political party first, it had to pick up arms because its intellectuals were killed unarmed, tortured with Thatcher and Reagan back up.
Wow.
Did you learn history in a tea party basement?
Mandela was a communist, ignorants rant on this post.
Does he had any choice not to be?
Who backed Africans in their fight against colonial oppression?
-- European humanists, among them intellectuals ( most of them from the Left ), priests mostly, the then URSS wasn’t actually interested, they provides education and arms just to piss the West.
-- It was Cuba that sacrificed a great deal to help africans, south Africans in particular.
NO, he did not HAVE to. He chose to (for whatever reasons). [quote]ANC was a party, a political party first, it had to pick up arms [/quote] No, the ANC do NOT have to. It was their choice of how to handle the situation. They were a political party first and a terrorist organization second. [quote]Mandela was a communist, ignorants rant on this post. Does he had any choice not to be?[/quote] Of course he had a choice not to be.
Going through this thread is depressing. Reminds me of how many people refuse to acknowledge greatness, because of their extreme ignorance, hatred, bigotry, racism, or dark and twisted soul. There's a reason Mandela is a hugely inspiration figure for the entire world, why there's been such an outpouring of grief over his death, and if you can't understand why that is, there's probably something wrong with YOU, and not the man himself or the people that admire and respect him. He was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid in Africa, which involved extreme repression. The man wasn't perfect- he never claimed to be- and yes, violence was used when it was deemed effective. There's a reason that even his former enemies loved him in the end. But I wonder, if violence isn't justified for such a case- when others are stepping on your throats and stripping you of your rights, then when the **** is it? Whats interesting to me is that the same people here calling him a murderer are the same people who justify the invasion of other countries by the US, using specious and ridiculous argumentation. Right wing loons, racists, and xenophobes (there's a few in this thread) love colonialism, repression of others, and despise anyone who truly tries to bring about equality to all.
The least you can do, when someone who has accomplished so much good in his life dies, and who millions of people admire and take inspiration from, is to shut the **** up and have the decency to not expose your ugly and twisted views to all, like the useless keyboard warriors you are.
Do you realize this specious argument could be used to promote an armed and violent uprising against the US government? Violence in the pursuit of "correcting an injustice" depends on one's perception of what is right and wrong, doesn't it?
Let me ask! Have you ever been oppressed because of the color of your skin? Also, how many of those which walked with Dr. King suffer atrocities? Do you know? Sometimes you must relinquish your civilities to be understood that you would prefer to be treated as equal as those before you.
"Necklacing" in South Africa was black on black violence.
Also, are you familiar with conflicts between the Hutus and Tutsis? How about between Israelis and Palestinians? How about Georgians and Russians, or North and Sourh Koreans? Who is "right"? Who is "just"?
Do you realize this specious argument could be used to promote an armed and violent uprising against the US government? Violence in the pursuit of "correcting an injustice" depends on one's perception of what is right and wrong, doesn't it?
1. His argument wasn't specious.
2. Yes, it could be used to justify an uprising in the US. And let me say this: As broken as our system is -- I think a good analogy is it's like a notebook dropped from a second floor balcony; it will turn on, but that's it; it's ceased to actually work as a computer -- as broken as it is, I don't support the idea of revolution. First, it would stand absolutely 0% of working, given the size and breadth of the US military. Second, I'm still hopeful (naively so, probably) that a non-violent solution can be found. It won't be found in my lifetime, but it's possible. But I understand the feelings of those who do indeed deem it a necessary step.
3. This country was born in revolution. Was Sam Adams a terrorist?
2. Yes, it could be used to justify an uprising in the US. And let me say this: As broken as our system is -- I think a good analogy is it's like a notebook dropped from a second floor balcony; it will turn on, but that's it; it's ceased to actually work as a computer -- as broken as it is, I don't support the idea of revolution. First, it would stand absolutely 0% of working, given the size and breadth of the US military. Second, I'm still hopeful (naively so, probably) that a non-violent solution can be found. It won't be found in my lifetime, but it's possible. But I understand the feelings of those who do indeed deem it a necessary step.
3. This country was born in revolution. Was Sam Adams a terrorist?
Man, I am from Czechoslovakia, we were under Soviet occupation since 1968 to 1989. I understand communism in practice better than any American hippie wannabe progressive democratic socialist.
Man, I am from Czechoslovakia, we were under Soviet occupation since 1968 to 1989. I understand communism in practice better than any American hippie wannabe progressive democratic socialist.
Actually, what the Soviets practiced had as much in common with communism as I have in common with Kanye West.
Comments
I think it's inappropriate for Apple to casually use Mandela's image. His past and his ex-wife's past are enough to taint use of his visage for any promotional or political purpose. What's next, heroic poses of Mao on the home page to pander to China?
In addition, once violence is accepted as a solution, then any kind of violent opposition for any perceived oppression is justifiable. Racists would feel justified, spouse abusers would feel justified, etc.
Divisive political figures should be off the table for Apple.
Google "Winnie Mandela necklace" (caution, brutal horrific imagery)
As I recall, Martin Luther King took a stand that did not involve murdering others.
I think it's inappropriate for Apple to casually use Mandela's image.
Then it's a good thing they are not casually using it.
Both are true. Mandela was a violent revolutionary and a Communist. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to repel the Russians.
The upshot from the US viewpoint should be that whenever we allow our military and politicians to interfere and involve us in the affairs of other nations, no good ever comes of it.
Nope.
The USA, The Vatican, The West, all started over various despicable act of violence.
Violence with an objective end, to end violence, depending on the case.
Bin Laden violence is to achieve what?
Comparing bin Laden to Mandela, then the West violent past ( including the various holocaust it caused in the southern hemisphere ) should be put in the same level as Bin Laden’s.
Bloody nonsense it is the same.
Should not be used at all.
Going through this thread is depressing. Reminds me of how many people refuse to acknowledge greatness. There's a reason Mandela is a hugely inspiration figure for the entire world, why there's been such an outpouring of grief over his death. He was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid in Africa, which involved extreme repression. The man wasn't perfect- he never claimed to be- and yes, violence was used when it was deemed effective. There's a reason that even his former enemies loved him in the end. But I wonder, if violence isn't justified for such a case- when others are stepping on your throats and stripping you of your rights, then when the **** is it? Whats interesting to me is that the same people here calling him a murderer are the same people who justify the invasion of other countries by the US, using specious and ridiculous argumentation.
The least you can do, when someone who has accomplished so much good in his life dies, and who millions of people admire and take inspiration from, is to shut the **** up and have the decency to not expose your ugly and twisted views to all.
Should not be used at all.
"Should not be used at all" because you hold an extreme, minority view towards Mandela that is not shared by many, and who most people in real life would be repulsed to hear. Right. You've been hellbent in this thread as defining Mandela as nothing more than a murderer and a communist, that should speak volumes about how worthwhile your opinion is, and the fact that you have the gall like to dictate to Apple what they "should" do in this situation is hilarious. You clearly don't hold a shred of context, historical perspective, or objectivity in your unbalanced, petty, and childish views that serve only to pick and choose what you want to see in order to demonize someone great.
I wouldn't put it as strongly as you, but I'm in your corner. So often we see little people aspiring to be great, believing that they will achieve greatness by making posts that tear down those who truly are great.
Why did he kill?
Because he chose to do so.
NO, he had to.
He was obliged to, obliged by the West terrorists, those who protected the criminal and holocaust driven regime which was apartheid.
ANC was a party, a political party first, it had to pick up arms because its intellectuals were killed unarmed, tortured with Thatcher and Reagan back up.
Wow.
Did you learn history in a tea party basement?
Mandela was a communist, ignorants rant on this post.
Does he had any choice not to be?
Who backed Africans in their fight against colonial oppression?
-- European humanists, among them intellectuals ( most of them from the Left ), priests mostly, the then URSS wasn’t actually interested, they provides education and arms just to piss the West.
-- It was Cuba that sacrificed a great deal to help africans, south Africans in particular.
NO, he had to.
NO, he did not HAVE to.
He chose to (for whatever reasons).
[quote]ANC was a party, a political party first, it had to pick up arms [/quote]
No, the ANC do NOT have to. It was their choice of how to handle the situation.
They were a political party first and a terrorist organization second.
[quote]Mandela was a communist, ignorants rant on this post.
Does he had any choice not to be?[/quote]
Of course he had a choice not to be.
Do you realize this specious argument could be used to promote an armed and violent uprising against the US government? Violence in the pursuit of "correcting an injustice" depends on one's perception of what is right and wrong, doesn't it?
NO, he had to.
NO, he did not HAVE to.
He chose to (for whatever reasons).
No, the ANC do NOT have to. It was their choice of how to handle the situation.
They were a political party first and a terrorist organization second.
Of course he had a choice not to be.
Yeah, he should have sided with the West, watching his people and land get raped. It is BEST to side yourself with the powerful guys and gals.
That is What cowards DO!
And please DO not compare Gandhi’s style with that of Mandela’s.
Indians were used by the Great Britain imperialists as a front end of the Empire in Africa, Africans did not have the same luck.
Did the Apartheid regime have a choice NOT to butcher Africans, ANC activists and its sympathizers?
Mandela actions were forced by cowardice, cowardice that Thatcher and Reagan backed, with their big money and big guns.
Now WHY the regime was so inhuman?
Because of the same logic you deployed here.
Looks like we went there anyways
"Necklacing" in South Africa was black on black violence.
Also, are you familiar with conflicts between the Hutus and Tutsis? How about between Israelis and Palestinians? How about Georgians and Russians, or North and Sourh Koreans? Who is "right"? Who is "just"?
Do you realize this specious argument could be used to promote an armed and violent uprising against the US government? Violence in the pursuit of "correcting an injustice" depends on one's perception of what is right and wrong, doesn't it?
1. His argument wasn't specious.
2. Yes, it could be used to justify an uprising in the US. And let me say this: As broken as our system is -- I think a good analogy is it's like a notebook dropped from a second floor balcony; it will turn on, but that's it; it's ceased to actually work as a computer -- as broken as it is, I don't support the idea of revolution. First, it would stand absolutely 0% of working, given the size and breadth of the US military. Second, I'm still hopeful (naively so, probably) that a non-violent solution can be found. It won't be found in my lifetime, but it's possible. But I understand the feelings of those who do indeed deem it a necessary step.
3. This country was born in revolution. Was Sam Adams a terrorist?
To answer #3 now, yes he was...to the British.
If you actually understood communism
Man, I am from Czechoslovakia, we were under Soviet occupation since 1968 to 1989. I understand communism in practice better than any American hippie wannabe progressive democratic socialist.
Man, I am from Czechoslovakia, we were under Soviet occupation since 1968 to 1989. I understand communism in practice better than any American hippie wannabe progressive democratic socialist.
Actually, what the Soviets practiced had as much in common with communism as I have in common with Kanye West.
Just so there's no confusion, that is not a lot.