Gergevszki Malin Zoltán
anglisztika BA
Uprisings in Colonial and Modern Times
Rebels, Bandits, Freedom Fighters and Others
Konzulens:
dr. Vraukó Tamás
egyetemi docens
Modern Filológiai Intézet
Miskolc, 2016
1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background .................................................................................................. 3
2. Colonial Conflicts, Leaders ............................................................................. 4
2.1 Simon Bolivar .............................................................................................. 4
2.2 Nat Turner .................................................................................................... 7
3. Modern Conflicts, Leaders ............................................................................ 12
3.1 Idi Amin ..................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Soviet–Afghani War ................................................................................... 16
4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 211
References ......................................................................................................... 233
Összefoglalás ..................................................................................................... 255
2
1. Introduction
This paper will be about several uprisings, revolts, rebellions across modern and colonial
history, with most of them having some connection to the anglophone world including the
United States, or the United Kingdom, furthermore I will dedicate a special attention on some
of the leaders or central figures of these uprisings.
The main aim of the paper is to investigate conflicts and figures that primarily in
Western society have been traditionally represented in a definite light, be it good or bad, and
give a more multi–faceted description and analysis of them, shed some new light, so are some
rebellious, bandit–like figures really that bad, or are traditional heroes and glorified events
really that great?
Many conflicts are often represented in a strict way, and the perception of most
conflicts are formed by the victorious sides of these events. Of course there are always two or
more sides in every one of these, but the voice of the other participant(s) is rarely heard of, or
the more influental, wealthy side alters the perception of said conflicts. Events like these are
usually not black and white, so I would like to take a look at these conflicts and people from
another, more critical perspective.
1.1 Background
Primarily a general interest in history has led me to settle on this topic. Furthermore, in these
times there are numerous events similar to what I shall write about, for example the Ukrainian
Revolution, Arab Spring, Migrant Crisis, with many strong viewpoints on such events. I have
looked into and read about these out of simple interest, and came to notice that none of the
situations are as simple as some or most state, there are rarely „good and bad guys‟, the
different sides can not be simply labeled as the enemies and the good ones, so this fueled my
interest in the topic, and I got the idea to investigate other events in the past, and explore some
misconceptions.
3
2. Colonial Conflicts, Leaders
2.1 Simon Bolivar
Simon Bolivar is considered as one of, if not as the greatest national hero of South America in
general. His deeds and actions ensured the independence of a variety of countries, such as
Venezuela, Peru or Bolivia, bearing his name, and later on he formed the unified country of
Great Colombia. Hailed as „El Libertador‟, his legacy is marked today by the country which
bears his name, streets named after him, statues erected depicting his figure, in Latin America
(Biography.com Editors, 2016a).
However, he was not an immaculate hero, a flagbearer of liberation, as one would think
after hearing about his praises. Although he did have noble intentions on behalf of the people
of South America, numerous deeds and personality traits of his are controversial, and some
people do ask the question: was he a liberator or dictator primarily?
Simon Bolivar (full name: Simón José Antonio de la Santísma Trinidad Bolívar y
Palacios) was born in Caracas, New Granada, located in modern day Venezuela on July 24,
1783 into a wealthy family. He had a wealthy upbringing and good education, but had to move
to Spain after the deaths of his parents in 1799. Here he finished his education, got married
(though briefly, his wife died 1 year later), and received exposure to patriotic and
revolutionary ideas, ideas that would later manifest themselves into his own philosophy
regarding resistance against the Spanish rule (Breathnach, 2005).
In 1807, Bolivar returned to South America, and at the same time erupted the
Peninsular War in Europe, with France under Napoleon invading the Iberian Peninsula. He
and a number of fellow revolutionnaries saw this as an opportunity to band together against
Spanish rule, and in 1810 the Caracas resistance movement declared independence.In 1811,
the war still raged on in Europe, so on the 5th July, the Republic of Venezuela declared
independence. However, the Republic proved to be unsustainable, and capitulated in 1812.
Bolivar fled, but joined up with a resistance movement in Cartagena to take back Venezuelan
land and form the Second Republic.
Up until this point in the career of Simon Bolivar, he appeared to be a faultless man,
fighting for the freedom of oppressed people, in a just manner. In June 13 however, Bolivar
4
made a controversial move, his first true one: He issued the „Decree of War and Death‟, which
states that all Americans shall be forgiven of their crimes, regardless of stance in the War, on
the other hand, all Spaniards who are of the opposing side, or are merely neutral will be
punished accordingly, and by this he meant death. Although this proved to be highly efficient
from a moral standpoint, the decree is still quite extreme, and appeared as a model, or basis for
warfare across the continent for decades (Breathnach, 2005).
In 1815 he wrote the „Letter From Jamaica‟, another controversial piece in which he
describes his visions of governance in South America: “This nation should be called Colombia
as a just and grateful tribute to the discoverer of our hemisphere. Its government might follow
the English pattern, except that in place of a king there will be an executive who will be
elected, at most, for life, but his office will never be hereditary…”He had the same idea for the
Mexican government: “…in which the executive will have great powers. These will be
concentrated in one person, who, if he discharges his duties with wisdom and justice, should
almost certainly maintain his authority for life.” (Bolivar, 1815) These systems were met with
resistance both in Venezuela and Nueva Granada, but Bolivar went with it nevertheless in his
name–bearing state, Bolivia, where he wrote a new constitution containing this system. Soon
the constitution was approved in Peru, but when he tried to extend it into Gran Colombia,
Santander opposed him, stating his actions were not legal by any means. To this Simon
Bolivar replied “It may not be legal, but it is popular and therefore right for a republic which is
democratic.” (Arellano, 2014).
I believe these acts and statements discredit the image of Bolivar as a positive figure.
He championed freedom and democracy for his people, but government systems such as these,
being elected for life are easily exploitable, and go against democratic values. The fact that he
went on with these systems, not caring for resistance, portray a different Bolivar than what
normally is presented, and his last quote cements this other, more negative image of him in my
opinion.
By the year of 1825, Bolivar managed to form Gran Colombia (1821), which included
Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, became Dictator of Peru (1824) and finally formed his
„personal state‟ of Bolivia, bearing his name. Over the years, many challenged him and his
authority, but by this time he convinced himself that he is the only person capable of uniting
the continent, thus he dealt with opposition firmly and ruthlessly (Breathnach, 2005) .
5
However, opposers were still numerous, and brought down his plan to unite South
America into one federation, in the likes of the United States. As an answer to this, he declared
himself Dictator of the Americas.
With this feat though, he only managed to further anger the people under his rule, and
soon the states were consumed by violence and disorder. Bolivar finally saw that his ambitions
and dreams would not come to fruition, and resigned from office in 1830, stating that America
was ungovernable as a whole, single entity. Living off his remaining days in self–exile on the
island of Santa Marta, fighting with tubercolosis, Simon Bolivar, liberator and dictator of
South America died on December 17th, 1830 (Lynch, 1983 ).
Simon Bolivar was, as stated in the beginning, an instrumental figure in shaping South
American nation states, politics and values, without his deeds and leadership, much of the
continent would probably be different today, quite possibly in a negative way. He is,
understandably, celebrated in most of the states of the contient, but it is no secret that his
leadership and decisions were not without faults, faults that an outsider might not pick up on
first, may not generally hear of, or be shared with.
For instance, contrary to the other nations on the continents, in Peru his image is not
quite favorable. He is viewed as the person who divided their country, and according to
sources, articles and documents, Bolivar himself viewed Peru as a threat, and had an
especially hate–filled relationship with the indigenous peoples. Before traveling to Peru, he
had no hard feelings towards them, but after he came in touch with the Pastusos rebellion, his
view changed dramatically, his stance being: “Those demons deserve to die.” According to
Peruvian professor Cecilia Méndez Gastelemundi, originally appearing on the blog
Globalizado and translated in the article „Simón Bolívar, Esteemed Liberator or Infamous
Dictator?‟, Bolivar viewed indigenous people as being “incapable of political conception.“
She also states that if the natives were not voluntarily distancing themselves from politics,
Bolivar‟s “only way to solve the problem would be annihilation.” (Arellano, 2014).
Peruvian historian Hugo Pereyra Plasencia states that official letters and documents
clearly show that in the eyes of Bolivar, Peru was a threat. He says that “Bolivar had a very
clear perception, in fact, that is why he did everything in his power to create an alternative
hegemony: The Gran Colombia, consisting of the current Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador,
with claims to Guayaquil and above all the Amazon River and it's gigantic surrounding region.
6
The Gran Colombia emerged as a counterbalance to the alleged Peruvian threat.” Furthermore,
he states “In 1823, Bolívar arrived in Peru, not specifically to free his Peruvian brothers
suffering from the chains of absolutism (a thought he always manifested in a grandiloquent,
and of course, hypocritical manner), but mainly due to his geopolitical desire to destroy the
root of what he considered was a threat towards Gran Colombia, […] That is why Bolivia is
created, to cut the legs off the Peruvian “monster,” (Arellano, 2014).
Additionally, Venezuelan Antonio Esclera Busto explains that “Upon the independence
of Peru, on February 10, 1825, Bolívar once again reconvenes the Constituent Congress […]
Congress appoints Bolívar as “the country's Savior and Founding Father” and demands the
erection of the equestrian statue in the congress plaza, where it stands today, as payment or
“small token of recognition” for the Liberator, worth 1,000,000 pesos, which was more of less
one–third of the Peruvian budget during that time.” (Arellano, 2014).
As I have mentioned before, his later acts such as the implementation of unpopular
governmental systems discredit his positive image. The quotations from various Latin
American professors in the previous paragraphs show a different image of Bolivar as well,
with him regarding Peruvians as inferior, posing a threat to his plans. These sentiments, his
acts, dictatorial nature in his later years show us the other side of Bolivar, a side I believe is
purposefully overlooked by most people, because South America needed, and needs a figure
to universally be proud of and look up to. However, I also believe that Simon Bolivar started
off with noble intentions, and treated the interests of the people as a priority. His ways,
methods later became more extreme, as he believed it was needed to govern a land as huge
and diverse as Gran Colombia. A man with a fair share of faults indeed, but he championed
the interests of the people, and did more good than bad, so I believe remembering him as a
liberator instead of a dictator is appropriate in this case.
2.2 Nat Turner
Nat Turner is one of the most complex characters of American history, with the rebellion he
led sparking debates even nowadays, 200 years later. Turner and his fellow slaves staged an
uprising in Southampton County, Virginia state, which came to be known as one of the
bloodiest rebellions in U.S. history. Some regard him as a fanatic, blinded by religion, while
others as a hero against slavery.
7
Born on October 2, 1800 on a plantation in Southampton County, Nat Turner was
regarded as intelligent, charismatic throughout his life. He learned to read and write at a very
young age, and grew up deeply religious, frequently seen reading the Bible in his spare time.
Starting in his early twenties, Nat began to see visions, which influenced his life greatly in the
coming years(Biography.com Editors, 2016c).
At this point would I like to clarify, that accounts of the character and personality of
Nat Turner are few, with the only notable one being the book „The Confessions of Nat Turner‟
(1832) written by Thomas R. Gray. This book is controversial as well though, with many
accusing the late writer of fabricating parts, instead of writing down precisely what Turner
told him.
Nevertheless, his first clear vision came when he ran away from his master Samuel
Turner, only to return one month later famished, saying that God told him to “…return to the
service of my earthly master.” (Gray, 1832:8) His second vision had a more dramatic tone,
with Turner exclaiming “…the Saviour was about to lay down the yoke he had borne for the
sins of men, and the great day of judgement was at hand.” (Gray, 1832:9)
By this point Turner became embittered by his and his fellows‟ lives. Virginians,
especially in Southampton County regarded themselves as kind, benevolent folk who treat
their slaves with care. To an extent, this was true, as Nat and others were allowed to learn to
read, write, and Nat was even allowed to work in the local church, baptising white men
amongst other activities, but slavery was still slavery, they were essentially property. Turner
despised the hypocrisy of the white Christians surrounding him, who thought being an honest
good Christian and a slave owner went hand in hand (Oates, 1973 ).
After several other visions, such as one in which “white spirits and black spirits were
engaged in battle” (Gray, 1832:8), Turner saw it fit to organize the slave rebellion and revolt
against their masters. By August 22, everything was planned, and in the dark of the night, he
and his fellow slaves set out. Their first targets were the owners of Turner, whom they
promptly massacred, even the children (a baby was forgotten first, but they went back to kill
him as well), and then armed themselves with their weaponry(St. John Erickson, 2016).
Shedding their former clothes and mounting their masters horses, they set out to “… carry
terror and devastation wherever we went…” as Turner is reported to have said so (Gray,
1832:14).
8
Although the rebels had a good cause in mind, acts and utterances such as these hardly
make them eligible for the freedom fighters status over the crazed fanatics one in my opinion.
Savagely murdering innocent people, especially children is never justifiable, and doing so
because of religious visions made it hard to symphatize with the rebels. A counter argument to
this could be that black slaves endured similar acts, but I do not believe this to be a righteous
cause. These specific people were innocent of crimes, and sending a message via their murder
is a horrendous act, no matter who does it.
As written in the article of Stephen B. Oates, „Children of Darkness‟ (1973), the
ensuing massacre was truly savage, with him writing “He saw Will drag Mrs. Whitehead
kicking and screaming out of the house and almost sever her head from her body.”, and about
the first kill of Turner “He overtook the girl in a field and hit her again and again with his
sword, but she would not die. In desperation he picked up a fence rail and beat her to death.
Finally he had killed someone.” It is worth noting that Southampton really was one of the
better places for the slaves, as Oates writes “Young Francis was Will‟s owner, but he could
not have been a harsh master: several free blacks voluntarily lived on his farm.Francis was not
home, and his pregnant young wife survived Will‟s onslaught only because a slave concealed
her in the attic.”
The rampage continued, with the short–term final destination being county capital
Jerusalem, where they would loot an armory and proceed to free more and more slaves. It was
not meant to happen however, as news spread quickly and local militiamen started to organize,
numbering from hundreds to a thousand initially. The rag–tag freedom fighters never really
stood a chance. Soon they were driven back at the Blum farm, and with many of them dead or
wounded, they dispersed into the woods (St. John Erickson, 2016).
The oncoming retaliation was at least as brutal as the rebellion, with many white
Americans taking arms up in fear of their lives. An estimated 200 blacks were killed, with
most of them innocent of crimes. Vigilante groups rounded up and maimed, decapitated as
many blacks as they could find. A „memorial‟ to this massacre still stands in North Carolina,
called „Blackhead Signpost Road‟, set up by the vigilantes at the time, with the name still
being a sore spot for many African–Americans, understandably so (St. John Erickson, 2016).
Turner was caught two months later, tried, and sentenced to death by hanging.
Unfortunately, his actions had resulted in the opposite of what he wanted. Oates writes in his
9
article (1973), that “What followed was the Great Reaction of the 1830‟s and 1840‟s, during
which the South, threatened it seemed by internal and external enemies, became a closed,
martial society determined to preserve its slave–based civilization at whatever cost. If
Southerners had once apologized for slavery as a necessary evil, they now trumpeted that
institution as a positive good.” But for the black slaves, Nat Turner became a man of God,
standing up against oppression.
And more or less this seems to be the stance on him today as well. He is a hero mainly
in the minds of African–Americans, but is not universally accepted as a freedom fighter or
revolutionary in America. On the site of PBS.com, commenters could share their opinions on
Nat Turner, on one side there are comments such as “As a white person raised in the south, I
don't look at Nat Turner as some sort of hero. He killed women and children. That's just as bad
if not worse than enslavement. It's like white people looking at the Ku Klux Klan as heroes.
It's just plain out wrong.”, and on the other side, “Nat Turner was by all means a hero. Slavery
created the conditions for which he became insane and was able to kill innocent women and
children.”, and “Nat Turner was without a doubt one of the greatest heroes the black
community has ever had. Sure he killed women and children along with slaveowners. But as
the great Malcolm X said, "The chickens have come home to roost." What does this mean?
What goes around comes around. Nathaniel Turner experienced the worst of slavery and had
to take a stand. Sometimes, only blood being spilled is the only way to be taken seriously.
Who is worst, the slaveowners who raped and killed at will, or Nat defending his people?
Nathaniel Turner, I Honor You.” (Independent Lens).
Based on the information I wrote about and general knowledge of Western values, I
feel encouraged to say that American society is at a dilemma regarding how to view the
rebellion. Declaring him a freedom fighter and hero would mean that his brutal methods are
sanctioned, but they can not state that his rebellion was unjust against the institution of slavery
either. Is it really fair to frown upon these ways when their race has been treated the same as
well before? Giving someone a taste of their own medicine is a positive idiom, so to say, and
that is what Nat Turner and the others did essentially, in the name of their plight. After some
deliberation I came to the conclusion that the rebels did have a good cause to start an uprising,
even though they were treated decently, they still lived under oppression. However, I can not
endorse the ways in which the rebellion was executed, and I believe it would only be fair to
10
not turn a blind eye on these details, and remember this conflict fully as it happened. His
motives were just, his methods were not.
11
3. Modern Conflicts, Leaders
3.1 Idi Amin
Idi Amin was a Ugandan president, from 1971 until 1979. Viewed as a dictator by most, his
atrocious deeds are numerable, well–known and nearly indisputable today. This section
therefore will not deal as much with the actions of said president, but rather with how he is
regarded nowadays by common people (especially from Uganda) and how Great Britain, and
to a lesser extent Israel supported a man responsible for a nearly decade–long rule of tyranny,
and what this has to say about the political stance and „hypocrisy‟ of the West.
Born around 1925 as a child of the Kakwa ethnic group in northwestern Uganda, Idi
Amin received next to no education, up until he joined the King‟s African Rifles of the British
army in 1946. His notable size and strength enabled him to rise among the ranks quickly,
reaching the highest one possible around 1952, after which he excersised his combat prowess
against the Mau Mau rebels in Kenya (Biography.com Editors, 2016b).
Later in his years, Amin came to befriend Milton Obote, president of Uganda at the
time. Long before the coup in 1971, relations between Obote and the powers of the West,
especially Britain, began to sour, as the main agenda of Obote was to shake off the shackles of
colonial powers and form an independent Uganda. In response the British had to devise a plan
to defend their interests, as they had a significant industrial and agricultural presence in the
country (Biography.com Editors, 2016b).
Journalists Pat Hutton and Jonathan Bloch give a detailed and thorough examination of
British and Western role in Amin‟ rule in their 1979 article of the subject,written for and
published as part of the book „Dirty Work 2 – CIA in Africa‟, edited by Ellen Ray, William
Schaap, Karl Van Meter and Louis Wolf in 1980. According to the article, Amin was THE
planned successor to Obote, being groomed way before the planned coup. Not being
concerned with the mental power –or well–being of the man, the British instead opted to
evaluate his potential as president mainly based on his loyalty to Britain (1980:145).
According to Hutton and Bloch, several powers were involved in the planned coup
besides Britain, mainly Israel and to a lesser extent, the USA. Israel at the time was supporting
a rebellion by a tribal group (Anya–Nya) in Southern Sudan. However, based on the accounts
12
of several mercenaries, agents and the like, it became clear that the involvement of the West
and Israel in this movement was only present to establish a base of operations from where
further plans could be cultivated – in regards to the toppling of Milton Obote. The Anya–Nya
rebels were meant to be incorporated as allies, and serve as a fighting support in the coup, and
they were indeed promised to Amin by the Israelis in response to his worries. (1980:146)
At the time of the uprising, Obote was at a Commonwealth conference in Singapore
with other African leaders, to oppose British support of the South African apartheid rule. A
quite interesting quote can be pulled from the article of Hutton and Boch, stating that when
said African leaders threatened to pull out of the Commonwealth, British Prime Minister
Edward Heath was reported to say in return, “I wonder how many of you will be allowed to
return to your own countries from this conference.” (1980:150) Personally I see this as an
unusually blunt and snide remark to be used in a diplomatic meeting, that suggests to me
thatthe British at this point were probably not even trying to hide the existence of the
upcoming coup and their alleged involvement.
Their over–enthusiastic handlement of the succesful coup only reinforces this in my
opinion, as after just a week, they were the first to recognize the legitimacy of Amin, and the
papers almost unanimously praised him, statements ranging from mild appreciation (“Good
luck to General Amin” – the Daily Telegraph) to overzealous praising (“Military men are
trained to act. Not for them the posturing of the Obotes and Kaundas who prefer the glory of
the international platform rather than the dull but necessary tasks of running a smooth
administration” – the Daily Express) (1980:150)
As written by Hutton and Bloch (1980:150, 151), relations were stable in the
beginning, with Amin acting as Britain wanted him to, and in turn Britain providing him with
military and financial aid. However, it became increasingly apparent for Britain, that
containing Amin shall prove to be a hard task, as the increasingly expansionist and dictatorial
tendencies of the man began to surface. A Tanzanian invasion was at the forefront of the mind
of Amin, to which he received no support from the British though, so he then turned to his
other ally, the Israelis. They too saw this plan as fruitless, and declined, leading to the
expulsion of Israeli nationals from the country in April 1972. It is worth noting, that according
to the article, Britain still supplied Amin with intelligence and strategic advice, through an
officer of theirs, living near the Tanzanian border (1980:151). The mentioned officer, name
13
undisclosed unfortunately, was later sacked and put to trial, and when he wanted to publish an
article detailing his work with Idi Amin, the British government, making an interesting move
again, deleted the story, on the ground of it breaking national security of the country.
From 1976 onward it became quite clear that the increasingly extreme actions of Amin
would result in his downfall, culminating in the 1978 invasion of Tanzania, which he lost, and
as a result was ousted from office by Tanzanian forces. He was granted asylum in Saudi
Arabia, and died on August 16, 2003, never facing any sort of trial for his actions.
As it has been mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, Idi Amin is regarded as a
brutal dictator, with little to no sympathy from national powers or the common people around
the world. I purposefully did not write no sympathy, as I discovered that actually, not the
majority, but a large number of Ugandans remember Idi Amin as not a tyrannical leader
responsible for plunging their country into chaos, but as a father figure to them, who stood up
to the West(BBC NEWS, 2003).Immediately the thought came to my mind, is it fair to judge
as an outsider, to label someone when the opinion isn‟t universally the same on said person,
and the opposite opinion is mainly from people affected by the actions of the subject?
Family members of Amin are probably the most qualified to describe the man in detail,
at least on a personal level. Their views may be affected by love or hatred (Amin had a lot of
family members), nonetheless one of his sons, for the first time ever, came out and spoke
publicly about Idi Amin, detailed in the Daily Mail article titled “Mad Ugandan dictator's son
reveals all about his 'Big Daddy' “ written by Adam Luck (2007). Jaffar Amin broke his vow
of silence with the intention to “…show that my father was a human being and that, to me, he
was and always will be a good father.” Jaffar details his upbringing in the article, admitting
somewhat reluctantly that indeed, his father had an interesting kind of humour, bordering on
violence sometimes. Still, he dismisses his violent nature, stating “I hated it when people
called him a buffoon. I thought of him as like Mohammad Ali he had that same sense of
mischief.” Jaffar further justifies his father‟s deeds, saying that “'He felt Uganda's elitist
system denied an equal chance for so many poor children.”
It is important to mention the expellation of all Asians and confiscation of their
properties under Amin. Counted amongst his dictatorical acts, it is a more controversial and
sensitive subject, as many Ugandans living at the time expressed harsh conditions under their
Asian bosses, with Jaffar stating “They did not treat the indigenous Africans well, this is why
14
my father eventually expelled Asians who refused to take up Ugandan nationality.” This is a
common point which symphatizers and even non–symphatizers sometimes share, that he was
justified in expelling the Asian populace, with Ugandan Asian Dilip from the UK expressing
“As a Ugandan Asian, being expelled from Uganda was the biggest turning point in my life
and for my family. I totally abhorred the things that Amin did to his own people. However, I
also believe that he was justified in expelling the Asians as they did run the country and
treated the 'native Ugandans' as second class citizens in their own country. I will not be
celebrating his death but at the same time my life has been changed for the better by what he
did in expelling us.” in the BBC News article „Idi Amin: Your thoughts‟ (2003).
Continuing on in the „Idi Amin: Your thoughts‟ (2003) article, one can find thoughts
similar to Jaffar‟s, such as “I am very sorry about his death. He had Uganda at heart. Amin has
died innocent since NONE proved that he was guilty. May H.E. Idi Amin Dada rest in peace.”
From Dr. Eng. A. Ibudi, and “I lived in Uganda as a youngster during the Amin era.
Interestingly I only recall the friendly nature of the president who could drive himself alone in
a jeep to social functions offering lifts to kids!” from George Bita.
As we can see, there are plentiful of differing opinions regarding the rule and nature of
Amin. However, I believe many who express such opinions choose to ignore the hard facts
that undermine their positive outlook on Amin, or were simply fortunate enough to not have
felt the effects of his time in office. It is disputable, that he had somewhat good intentions for
the people of Uganda, but his actions did not reflect this entirely, and that is what matters in
my opinion. There were not many, if any redeeming qualities of Amin I found, and the fact
that Britain paraded him as a hero, and continued to do so well into his years undermines their
legitimacy as a democracy that swears to uphold the rights of the people.
This is one more subject worth discussing, that is the stance of the British government,
and the West in general. Western ideals are viewed as virtuous and humanitarian, so one could
ask the question, why did these powers who pride themselves as being „champions of virtue‟
not intervene, why did they let this man run amok for nearly a decade? I feel encouraged to
say that the West has double standards somewhat, protecting human rights only comes after
protecting their own interests. This was especially true for Britain, whom still had an eye on
their former colonies and wanted to aid them, and keeping their trade links secure was of
15
utmost importance. Britain was more pragmatist than humanitarian, and thus Amin was
allowed to rule until he was able to do so.
3.2 Soviet–Afghani War
After the end of World War II, the United States became locked in a power struggle with the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It was a war of ideologies, therefore throughout
all of the Cold War, no open conflict erupted between the two superpowers. However,
between 1979 and 1989, the line between Real and Cold War became the blurriest yet, with
the two powers vying for dominance over a certain state: Afghanistan.
As it has been mentioned in the introduction of the paper, it will examine conflicts and
in most cases, their leaders. This final sub–chapter therefore focuses on the conflict itself as a
whole, rather than on individuals who took part in it. Mentions of certain leaders, governers
and peoples will be present, however the primary focuses of this chapter are the circumstances
of the conflict, the details of it that do not count as general knowledge I believe, and what
these details imply.
Soviet influence was present in Afghanistan ever since around 1955, when they began
to provide military training and hardware to the country. In about 20 years time, more than
half ofthe troops of Afghanistan received training by the Soviet Union. Former Afghan Prime
Minister Mohammed Daoud launched a coup in the summer of 1973, deposing King Zahir and
installing a pro–communist government. Due to internal unrest and threats to his government,
he decided to steer away from Soviet influence, opting to improve relations with the West and
the U.S.(Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs).
Pro–communist factions were immediately alarmed by this move, and in 1978, the
Khalq faction, led by a certain Noor Taraki, invaded the home of the Prime Minister and
proceeded to execute him and his family, gaining control of the state through a violent coup.
Internal strife between different political factions continued, but the Khalqi government stayed
in rule, and began a huge national program, namely the bringing of Communist revolution to
Islamic tribal areas. Moscow had high hopes of course, not wanting an unstable southern
border, but their expectations were not really met, as soon almost all of rural Afghanistan rose
up in an armed revolt(Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs).
16
The revolt strengthened further in the following year, with the government being
unable to contain it. Taraki was deposed by fellow party member Hafizullah Amin. Amin was
even more brutal than his predecessor, frightening even the Soviets with his actions. By
December 1979, the whole country fell into chaos, leading to a Soviet invasion in order to
stabilise the country (Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs).
The United States, with the administration of Jimmy Carter at the time, was not happy
about this action in the least. Afghanistan had huge oil reserves, and the Americans feared that
if the Soviets got their hands on these reserves, it would imbalance „global stability‟. Carter
denounced Brezhnev, the US proceeded to enact trade embargos and sanctions on the USSR,
and finally aid was being sent to the Afghan insurgents (Office of the Historian, Bureau of
Public Affairs).
At this point it is worth mentioning, that the reality of this war, how it came to be was
never really clear, as facts that are somewhat known today were not public not so long ago.
Perhaps the most important „revelation‟ of this war is that the Soviet invasion was indirectly
facilitated by the US government, who provided aid to the mujahideen, or islamic warriors
half a year before the actual invasion came to be. Providing aid to the tribal insurgents was not
a response by the US government to contain Soviet aggression, it was part of a delibirate plan.
This has been confirmed by then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in an
interview conducted by French paper Le Nouvel Observateur, translated by historians William
Blum and David N. Gibbs (2000) for Gibbs‟ book „Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion in
Retrospect.‟
To the first question, he answers “…According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on
December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it
was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of
the pro–Soviet regime in Kabul.”( Gibbs, 2000).
Later he states that the government knowingly pushed the Soviet Union towards an
invasion, and when asked does he not feel regret, as an advocate of this act, that US actions
became the root for decades of instability in the region, he replied “Regret what? That secret
operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and
you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam
17
war." “, adding further down the line “What is more important in world history? The Taliban or
the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and
the end of the cold war?”( Gibbs, 2000).
The hypocrisy of the West at the time is clear in this case as well as it was in the case ofthe
rule of Idi Amin, written about earlier. Historian William Blum, in his book „Killing Hope: U.S.
Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II‟ written in 2003 recollects how in 1986,
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher welcomed Abdul Haq, responsible for the bombing of
Kabul airport in 1984, with open arms, and how the US officials knew well, that a fundamentalist
Islamic state such as Iran, Afghanistan could become (2003:345).
What many fail to notice and care about is how the pre–war Afghan government, and the
Soviet backed Karmal/Najibullah regimes during the war aimed and somewhat managed to
improve the state of the country, by providing healthcare, education and electricity to remote
areas, setting numerous innocent prisoners free, and so on (Blum, 2003:346). The war was not the
Soviet Union versus the whole of Afghanistan, but rather against the pro–fundamentalists, who
were great in numbers though. Still, that was the way the conflict was portrayed to the average
American. The US government was more concerned about the opposition of the communist
ideology, as is stated in the book of William Blum: “…the United States‟s larger interests …
would be served by the demise of the Taraki–Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might
mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan. … the overthrow of the D.R.A.
[Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third
World, that the Soviets‟ view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate.”
(2003:347)
Of course it would be foolish of me to state that the Soviets were not guilty of numerous
crimes or that they were there in order to improve the state of Afghanistan, unlike the U.S.. This
was not the case, they were there primarily to maintain influence in the region, and keep their
southern neighbours in check, lest Islamic fundamentalism and extremism spread to the Central
Asian territories of the USSR, where most of the Soviet Muslim population resided.
The U.S. was aware of the effects of the war on Afghan economy perfectly, evidenced by
declassified data from the National Security Archive. The May 1983 Defense Intelligence Agency
analysis writes about the subject in particular, detailing that “The effect of the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan has been catastrophic for the development of the Afghan economy. The evidence
suggests a serious decline in the gross national product (GNP) and the abandonment of many
Soviet aided industrial projects which had been completed or were under construction in
18
1979.”(1983:iv) At this point, in 1983 they remark “… In addition, Soviet involvement in
Afghanistan has lessened prospects for beneficial Western economic involvement through both
trade and transactions.” (1983:iv)A promising note, signalling that the U.S. intends to help out the
suffering Afghan populace, after the two foreign powers finish warring over their land, however
this was not really meant to be the case, as American aid only lasted a few years.
Media coverage in the United States were more or less sympathetic of the Mujahideen and
therefore the American cause. Written about in the 2002 book of Peter L. Bergen “Holy War Inc.,
Inside the Secret World of Osama Bin Laden”, journalist Rob Schultheis who traveled to
Afghanistan on several occasions documenting events, described the struggle as “The holiest of
wars”, and summarised his feelingsas “Those hopelessly brave warriors I walked with, and their
families, who suffered so much for faith and freedom and who are still not free, they were truly the
people of God.” (2002:52) Under this passage, writer Peter L. Bergen shares his thoughts too,
stating that “Indeed if any conflict deserved to be called a just jihad, the war against the Soviets in
Afghanistan surely was. Unprovoked, a superpower invaded a largely peasant nation and inflicted
on it a total, totalitarian war.” As we can see, Peter Bergen, as many Americans did and surely do
nowadays, dismisses the fact that U.S. pre–planned provocation did play a part in the ensuing
invasion and war.
Most news reporters shared a similar approach, with some notable extremes, such as CBS
correspondent Dan Rather, who described Soviet operations as Hitleresque, saying “They've used
the techniques of infiltration, destabilization, and invoked the doctrine of invited aggression,
which they borrowed from early Hitler. Who knows what other methods they will borrow from
him.” (Unger, 1980)
Meanwhile, an end to the war was closing in, as on 14 April 1988, President Mikhail
Gorbachev signed a peace deal in Geneva. According to it, Soviet troops would pull out by next
year. Puzzling reactions on further talks by the U.S. filled the air soon, as written in the book of
William Blum, such as when President Gorbachev called on the newly elected Bush
administration to stop arms shipment to Afghanistan, they simply rejected the proposal. Their
reasoning was that Kabul was left with enough supplies to defeat the insurgents, however this
statement is illogical, given that the fundamentalists were holding their ground well enough even
when the Soviets were present in the country.
Internal war still raged on for several years, but by 1992 spring, the U.S. backed
Mujahideen became victorious, as they conquered the capital Kabul. Amid unjustified detentions,
public hangings and mass killings, a new hard–line Islamic government was formed. The freedom
19
fighters who were hailed as holy warriors by the American media and government (Blum,
2003:347), defending their homeland from the evil Communists, were now in the process of
turning Afghanistan into a breeding ground for future extremists and radicals, with the United
States as one of their primary adversaries.
This whole conflict tells a lot about the true nature of the U.S. government, and their
priorities I believe. The government and the presidents during this era were completely consumed
by the Cold War and opposing the Soviet Union ideologically, geopolitically was at the forefront,
by any means necessary. The origins of this conflict was kept as a state secret for 20 years,
because it undermines the image of the virtuous U.S.. Furthermore, the plan seemed to be quite
short sighted in my eyes, it fulfilled its goals, and was not concerned with the future repercussions
at the time, which is not the way one would expect the United States to handle major conflicts. The
hypocrisy regarding the presentation of the Afghan populace, namely the fundamentalists stood
out too for me, as they were praised as heroes and holy fighters struggling for their freedom, at the
time. Nowadays though, the polar opposite can be seen in the news, press conferences about these
same people. Demonizing those people who they praised not that long ago, even if it is appropriate
is hypocritical I believe, especially since the United States enabled them to rise and spread, first by
supplying them, then by leaving the country on its own after their interests in the region faded with
the defeat of the Soviet Union.
20
4. Conclusion
As established in the introduction of the paper, the main goal was to take a look at several
uprisings, and leaders in order to come to a conclusion, are they mis– or under represented,
and if yes, in what way?
The first person examined was Simón Bolivar. He is traditionally celebrated as a hero
and liberator of South America. While the label freedom fighter fits his character by
definition, he later became dictator of South America as well, a part of his later career not
many care to mention. He is known as the liberator of the continent, not the dictator. His later
history is underrepresented, with his earlier deeds being discussed mostly. Ultimately though,
his earlier deeds did have a great impact, and though dictatorship carries negative
connotations, he has not committed any known atrocities to the populace, so he is not
grossfully misrepresented in the end.
The next person was Nat Turner, taking a controversial place in American history. His
character is complex, and it is hard to pass judgement on. He is viewed as a freedom fighter as
well, and stays true to the definition, fighting against an oppressing force, but it is debatable,
as killing civilians in a gruesome fashion befits rebels or bandits more. His representation is
complex as well, and what I found is that the more brutal details are swept under the rug by
both sides of the uprising today, that is the African–American and White populace of the
United States. African–Americans mostly praise his deeds, and the White populace too,
though not as enthusiastically, but they try to refrain from mentioning the details. A dilemma
is faced by Western society and values in this case, which becomes a theme in this paper
somewhat, as they can not say the rebellion was unjust, since the black populace was
subjected to slavery, an institution that goes against the values of today, but they can not fully
endorse it either, since it was a violent, bloody uprising, which goes against their ideals as
well.
Idi Amin was the third subject, and in his case, the mis–representation was not about
him mainly, but about the involvement of Western powers, especially the United Kingdom.
Amin himself was a clear cut dictator, and while I dealt with opposing views, there is not
much debate to it, he is not misrepresented. On the other hand, British involvement is
21
something that is, though no secret now, rarely discussed. The theme of Western hypocrisy
rears its head here fully, with Britain going against its basic values. A man who was clearly
mentally unstable, responsible for the killings of thousands was kept in power, in order to keep
British interests safe in the region. It is no secret that Britain was a highly pragmatic power,
but it is hypocritic to be a flagbearer of noble ideals, while enabling a man to reign who is the
antithesis of such ideals.
This hypocrisy is apparent in the final part in how the American government handled
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Until about twenty years after the end of it, this conflict
was viewed as an aggressive campaign initiated by the Soviet government in order to spread
their influence. Furthermore, the opposing Mujahideen or holy fighters were fed to the general
public as such, freedom fighters resisting Soviet occupation. Heavy misrepresentation,
carrying over to the present days too, with not many knowing about the circumstances of this
war. In truth though, as I have established, U.S. government pre–planned to push the Soviets
into attacking. Moreover, the U.S. clearly knew that this conflict would wreck the Afghan
economy, kill and displace hundreds of thousands, but they still went on with it, funding rebels
whose aim was to install a more strict, punishing government type, and who enforced their
ideals as brutally as they could. It is obvious, that all of this went against the ideals the West
and the U.S. stand for, and the fact that the origins of it remained hidden, have much to say I
believe.
22
References
Arellano, J. (2014). Simón Bolívar, Esteemed Liberator or Infamous Dictator?(Raquel Marin,
Trans.). Retrieved 24 October 2016 from https://globalvoices.org/2014/08/11/simon–
bolivar–esteemed–liberator–or–infamous–dictator–south–america/
BBC NEWS (2003). Idi Amin: Your thoughts.Retrieved 23 October 2016, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3155967.stm
Bergen, P. (2001). “Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama Bin Laden”. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Biography.com Editors (2016a). Simón Bolívar Biography. Retrieved 21 October 2016 from
http://www.biography.com/people/simon–bolivar–241196#legacy
Biography.com Editors (2016b). Idi Amin Biography. Retrieved 29 October 2016 from
http://www.biography.com/people/idi–amin–9183487
Biography.com Editors (2016c). Nat Turner Biography. Retrieved 29 October 2016 from
http://www.biography.com/people/nat–turner–9512211
Blum, W. (2003). “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II.”
London: Zed Books.
Bolivar, S. (1815). A Letter by Simon Bolivar (Lewis Bertrand, Trans.). Retrieved 24 October
2016 from http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/BAKEWELL/texts/jamaica–letter.html
Breatnach, R. (2005). Simón Bolívar – dictator or liberator?. Retrieved 21 October 2016 from
http://www.newstalk.com/Simn–Bolvar––dictator–or–liberator
Defense Intelligence Agency, Directorate for Research (1983). The Economic Impact of Soviet
Involvement in Afghanistan. Retrieved 4 November 2016 from
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us.html
Gray, T. R. (1832). “The Confessions of Nat Turner, the Leader of the Late Insurrection in
Southampton, VA.”. Retrieved from
https://books.google.hu/books?id=4DcSAAAAYAAJ
23
Gibbs, D. N. (2000). The Brzezinski Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur (1998). Retrieved 4
November 2016 from http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
Hutton, P., Bloch, J. (1979). “How the West Established Idi Amin and Kept Him There”in: E.
Ray, W. Schaap, K. Van Meter, L. Wolf (eds.) (1980). Dirty Work 2: The CIA In
Africa. Zed Press. 145–153.
Independent Lens. Nat Turner: A Troublesome Property. Retrieved 27 October 2016 from
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/natturner/talkback.html
Luck, A. (2007). Mad Ugandan dictator's son reveals all about his 'Big Daddy'.Retrieved
October 29 2016 from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article–428628/Mad–
Ugandan–dictators–son–reveals–Big–Daddy.html
Lynch, J. (1983). Simon Bolivar and the Spanish Revolutions. History Today, 33 (7).
Retrieved from http://www.historytoday.com/john–lynch/simon–bolivar–and–spanish–
revolutions
Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and the
U.S. Response, 1978–1980. Retrieved 4 November 2016 from
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1977–1980/soviet–invasion–afghanistan
Oates, S. B. (1973). Children of Darkness. American Heritage 24, 6. Retrieved 27 October
2016 from http://www.americanheritage.com/content/children–darkness?page=show
St. John Erickson, M. (2016). Remembering the horror of Nat Turner's rebellion. Retrieved 4
November 2016 from http://www.dailypress.com/features/history/dp–nws–nat–
turners–rebellion–20160820–story.html
Unger, A. (1980). Dan Rather: more Soviet killing looms in Afghanistan.The Christian
Science Monitor. Retrieved 4 November 2016 from
http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/0403/040360.html
24
Összefoglalás
A dolgozatom középpontjában olyan konfliktusok, háborúk és felkelések voltak, amelyek
elsősorban a nyugati szférában egy adott fényben vannak feltüntetve, legyen az jó vagy rossz.
Célja eme konfliktusok és legtöbb esetben vezéreik vizsgálata volt, annak érdekében hogy egy
bővebb leírást legyek képes adni, részletekkel amelyek nem feltétlenül számítanak általános
ismereteknek. Tehát a fő kérdés így állt: a tradícionálisan pozitív valamint negatív események
és történelmi személyek valóban olyanok voltak mint ahogyan a köztudatban élnek?
Dolgozatomat két fő részre osztottam, az elsőben a gyarmati időszakokból származó
konfliktusokkal és személyekkel foglalkoztam, míg a másodikban jelen koriakkal, azzal a
céllal hogy átfogóbb képet alkosson a téma. A négy megvizsgált esemény közül háromban
különös figyelmet kapott az adott személy aki a konfliktusok középpontjában állt, míg az
utolsó alfejezet témájában helyénvalóbbnak találtam magával a háborúval foglalkozni adott
személyek helyett, mivel abban az esetben véleményem szerint a konfliktus hajtóereje
népekben és ideológiákban koncentrálódott konkrét személyek helyett, bár tény hogy a fontos
döntéseket melyek befolyásolták az eseményeket főbb emberek hozták.
Az első alfejezetben Simon Bolivar Dél–Amerikai felkelővel és diktátorral
foglalkoztam. Bolivar a kontinens egyik leggyakrabban ünnepelt történelmi személye, több
ország neki tulajdonítja függetlenségét. A köztudatban felszabadítóként él, diktátori
tendenciáival már kevesebben foglalkoznak, vagy egyáltalán tudnak róla. Legfőbb érveim
hősnek való tartása ellen a 'Jamaikai Levél' volt elsősorban, melyben felvázolta uralkodási
terveit, valamint a Peruiakkal való viszonya, akiket beszámolók szerint egész élete során
megvetett és semmibe vett, vesztüket kívánva. Viszont konklúziómban arra a megállapításra
jutottam, hogy ezen tények ellenére is több jót tett a nép érdekében mint rosszat, így
ünnepeltetése inkább helyénvaló mint sem.
Második alfejezetem középpontjában Nat Turner rabszolgafelkelő állt. Az ő esete már
jóval összetettebnek bizonyult, egyrészt mert kevés forrás maradt fenn róla, másrészt
komolyabb etikai kérdés, hogyan tekintsünk rá. Turner felkelése javarészt igazságosnak van
tartva az Amerikai polgárok szerint, bár leginkább a fekete közösség tartja hősként számon.
Ebben a fejezetben nem azt próbáltam vitatni, joggal történt–e a felkelés, erre a válasz
25
természetesen igen véleményem szerint, hanem hogy a felkelés rendkívül véres körülményei
alapján igazságos–e hősként ünnepelni Nat Turner személyét. Arra jutottam hogy míg azért
elismerést érdemel, hogy felkelt a rabszolgaság elnyomása ellen, és ezzel inspirálta népét, a
módszereit, és a brutális erőszakot mely ártatlanokat ért nem szabadna elfeledni vagy
elhessegetni, ahogy azt mint kiderült sokan teszik.
Modern kori fejezetem első és mondhatni egyetlen fő személyisége Ugandai diktátor
Idi Amin volt. Szakdolgozatom iránya és kritikai tárgya ezen a ponton megváltozott
minimálisan, a hangsúly ebben (és a következő) alfejezetben nem azon volt hogy bizonyítsam,
az adott személy jól vagy rosszul van–e feltüntetve, hanem leginkább a nyugati hatalmak
befolyásán, és tettein, melyek ütköznek alapvető nyugati értékekkel, valamint nem számítanak
közismert információnak. Tehát Idi Amin esetében az Egyesült Királyság szerepén volt a
hangsúly, Amin maga bizonyítottan egy kegyetlen diktátor volt. Fordítottam erre is némi
hangsúlyt, mint kiderült Amint nem mindenki kezeli diktátorként, főként Ugandában, de arra a
következtetésre jutottam hogy vagy direkt hunynak szemet tettei felett, vagy csupán nem
tapasztalták meg uralmának kegyetlen fejezeteit. A Britek közrejárulását fontosabbnak
tartottam, uralkodói pozícióba segítették és ott is tartották aktívan, ezzel megvalósítva
majdnem fél millió ember halálát. A leírt információk alapján arra jutottam, hogy számukra a
haszon fenntartása és érdekeik elősegítése akkoriban előnyt élvezett emberek élete és jóléte
fölött, ami egy felettébb elkeserítő tény véleményem szerint.
Utolsó fejezetem Afganisztán Szovjet megszállásával foglalkozott. Némi párhuzamot
lehet vonni az előző fejezettel, ugyanis az Egyesült Államok mint nyugati nagyhatalom fontos
szerepet játszott itt. A tény hogy Amerika közvetve részt vett ebben a konfliktusban
valamennyire köztudott, de a körülményei nem voltak hosszú ideig. A hivatalos történet az
volt, hogy a Szovjetunió megszállta a szomszédos Afganisztánt annak érdekében hogy
terjessze befolyását és megkaparintsa a helyi olaj készleteket. Utólagosan derült ki, hogy bár
nem kizárólagosan, de az Egyesült Államok közvetett szervezése alapján indult meg a szovjet
offenzíva. Amerika terve az volt, hogy egy megnyerhetetlen, vagy legalábbis kimerítő
háborúba uszítsa a Szovjetuniót. A nyugati eszmék álszent mivoltja ebben az esetben vált a
leginkább tapinthatóvá úgy gondolom, kezdve attól hogy extrém iszlamistákat finanszíroztak a
helyiek élete árán, át azon hogy a médiában az említett fanatikusokat szent
szabadságharcosokként magasztalták, egészen addig a tényig hogy ezzel az egész hadjárattal
26
megteremtették a mai kor egyik legszegényebb országát, melyből Amerika elsőszámú
ellenségei túlnyomó részt származnak. A leírtak magukért beszéltek úgy gondoltam, ezért
véleményemet nem fejeztem ki teljes egészében, de a tény hogy ezt a hadműveletet
meglépték, támogatták és mai napokig védik (mint például nemzetbiztonsági főtanácsadó
Zbigniew Brzezinski) aláássák a nyugat és Amerika hitelességét mint erények fenntartóit.
27