Coup d'etat in Mali

[2952-0-0]

Looks like an old school coup has happened in Mali. The "Comité National pour le Redressement de la Démocratie et la Restauration de l'Etat" has taken over the TV station, attacked the presidential palace, and occupied Bamako. A group of men in uniforms have spoken on TV, accusing the government of not providing enough help to fight the Tuareg revolt. The butterflies from the Tunisian fruit vendor's suicide are spreading far and wide.

[2952-0-0]

The rebels have declared independence as a sovereign state:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17635437

[2952-0-0]

Why are the South Sudanese separatists called Freedom Fighters, when the Azawad separatists are called rebels and (without any proof) al-Qaida supporters?

[2952-0-0]

Of course. I don't sympathize with their methods. But their cause is still just. If you fight for freedom and against the oppression of your people you are a freedomfighter in my book - no matter what methods you use.
ANC used child soldiers and tortured perceived traitors in their camps. But they obviously were FF.

This is a very dangerous black and white view of the world. The Taliban also fought against oppression of their people and "for freedom". The CIA is now sponsoring perhaps dozens of armed groups in Iran, many of which make the Ayatollahs look like Confucian sages in comparison. And besides, South Africa was only a success because Mandela broke with the ANC's violent past and preached reconciliation. We can easily imagine an alternate ending where the ANC becomes like ZANU-PF where a Freedom Fighter gradually becomes an oppressive dictator.

[2952-0-0]

Yes. ANC could have been another dictatorial one-party (and there is still a small risk they could go that way). But you cant deny that their cause was just - making them FF.
The Taliban didn't fight for freedom. They fought to uphold gender apartheid and religious intolerance. I could never view that as "freedom", even if they believed that themselves.
The people of South Sudan has been oppressed in such an extreme way, that some sort of independence is the only way forward and the Tuaregs have a very good claim to independence from the alien culture in the South.
Both worthy causes.

According to that definition, a group can only be called "Freedom Fighters" in retrospect. The American Revolutionaries rebelled against a government which was generally governed by law and was (for its time) very democratic, and committed horrors against loyalists. Someone in 1975 would have seen the ANC and ZANU-PF as equally deserving to be called Freedom Fighters. When the People's Liberation Army marched through China in the late 1940s, they were almost universally welcomed by the peasants as liberators from oppressive and corrupt landlords, and in fact Mao depended hugely on peasants volunteering in droves. And let's not forget a whole slew of right-wing Republicans are hailing MEK as "Freedom Fighters" when they make the Ayatollahs look like Confucian sages in comparison. "Freedom Fighters" is 95% propaganda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But doesn't this make descriptions change in retrospect? It's very dangerous to reduce the world to simple black and white.