Talk:Mandume ya Ndemufayo

There seems to be a contradiction in the article. In the introduction it is said "when he died of either suicide or machine gun fire while the Kwanyama kingdom was under attack from Portuguese" but later in the section "Battle and death" it is written "he died in battle against the South Africans". Each one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.2.54 (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for pointing that out. The source mentions the Portuguese in a different context; he died in battle with the South Africans. --Pgallert (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This page is full of contradictions, lies and half truths. Unfortunately the history of 21st century Africa will be marred by political correct lies that will forever cast a shadow over actual events. The author of this article uses only sources from his country that was written after the indigenous people became literate. None of the sources will stand up to proper historical scrutiny. I would like to point out a few of the lies. 1)King Mandume did not fight against colonial rule. He rebelled against Portuguese "customs" officials because he did not recognise the border between Portuguese Angola and German South West Africa. It must be kept in mind that borders are a Western concept which was alien to the natives. 2)His rebellion against the recognition of borders resulted in a mini war with the Portuguese, which he lost. 3)He sought refuge is SWA which at that time was under South African control. South Africa defeated the Germans at the behest of the British and became de jure governors of the region until becoming de facto administrators under a League of Nations Mandate. 5)Under bizarre logic he signs an oath of allegiance with British crown which restricts his freedom of movement even more. Due to this oath the SA authorities are hesitant to help because of the obvious diplomatic issue this would cause. 4)The rule of unintended consequences then comes to play. Colonial administrators govern by the rule of law. The natives govern by a chiefdom system irreconcilable with Western norms. 5)Mandume sees to the affairs of his people from SWA territory and moves between the borders without due authority. During these "administrative affairs" in his journey up North, he does what any king thinks is his right to do. He takes cattle from different tribes as if it is his divine right. 6)Cattle in the native sense is what money is in the Western sense. It is their wealth. Every time Mandume takes cattle from different tribes they see it as him taxing them inappropriately which borders theft. His people then complain to the Portuguese authorities. 7)Under the rule of law, taking something that does not belong to you is theft. He is then charged with theft.Whereupon he again flees to SWA. 8)The Portuguese, by now fed up, places diplomatic pressure on SA to arrest Mandume and bring him to trial for the charge of theft. 9)After numerous attempts to resolve the matter amicably and peaceful the SA authorities realise that Mandume is stubborn as n mule and that he is only attentive to the barrel of a gun. 10)At the final demand for him to surrender his exact words are: "I will not fire the first shot, but be aware that I am not like an antelope in the field.I am a man, not a woman and I will fight to the last round. I am ready for you." 11)Clearly the author of the main article is exercising post colonial nationalism when he/she invokes the words "colonial" in his last words. 12)The writing was then on the wall and the battle started. He was killed and his body was found only after clearing the battle scene near his kraal. He had three bullet wounds in his abdomen.

This is the correct history. I so wish the political correct administrators of Wikipedia would pay more diligence to propaganda and facts. It is not that difficult.

Dear @Boetfaas: Congratulations on being the only person to have the ability to correctly interpret history! As one of the authors of this particular piece of nationalism I can assure you that I did not intentionally distorted facts but took what was easily available from written sources. That's what we do here on English Wikipedia.

You are welcome to add your sources. Even if they should not measure up to your own standards (I notice on your user page that you wish to correct our faulty facts on the apartheid government using sources by de Klerk, Breytenbach and de Kock), two different pieces of propaganda are clearly better than just one, and we could leave it to the reader to figure out that the truth might be somewhere in the middle. It's not about truth, anyway. I know very well that there is a view that all Namibian national heroes are either cattle thieves or petrol bombers. For as long as you can provide reliable sources, this point of view can be represented on Wikipedia. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)