Why did the MPLA use Child Soldiers ?

[Red Future]

Why ? Didnt the Cubans and Soviets voice oppostion to this? The FNLA and UNITA do not appear to have done this.So why the MPLA?.I remember seeing a clip of Cuban reporters actually interviewing Child MPLA groups considering this can anyone pose an explanation?

http://clivelimpkin.com/wp-content/gallery/main_gallery/1976_01_29_angola_cigs.jpg

MPLA Child Soldiers in Angola (1976 )

[Ismail]

UNITA used child soldiers as well, although perhaps not as much as the MPLA. I guess the main reason was because the MPLA was militarily weaker than UNITA, which initially was both more popular and better trained than the MPLA, and after 1976 increasingly better armed as well due to American and South African aid.

[Sir Comradical]

UNITA used child soldiers as well, although perhaps not as much as the MPLA. I guess the main reason was because the MPLA was militarily weaker than UNITA, which initially was both more popular and better trained than the MPLA, and after 1976 increasingly better armed as well due to American and South African aid.

And Chinese aid...

[Ismail]

And Chinese aid...And Zairian aid.

[Rafiq]

Desperation, is probably my guess. Though I do not imagine there was any forced conscription for children, unlike other particularly reactionary African forces backed by the Americans.

[Sir Comradical]

And Zairian aid.

I mention Chinese aid to the Unita specifically because you are a Hoxhaite. So what are your thoughts on that?

[Ismail]

I mention Chinese aid to the Unita specifically because you are a Hoxhaite. So what are your thoughts on that?Well Hoxha denounced the Chinese and both MPLA and UNITA, so yeah. As Hoxha wrote in Imperialism and the Revolution:

Under the cloak of aid for peoples' liberation the Soviet Union and its mercenary, Cuba, are intervening in other countries with armies equipped with artillery and machine-guns, allegedly to build socialism, which does not exist in either the Soviet Union or Cuba. These two bourgeois-revisionist states intervened in Angola in order to help a capitalist clique seize power, contrary to the aims of the Angolan people who had fought to win their freedom from the Portuguese colonialists. Agostinho Neto is playing the game of the Soviets. In the struggle against the other faction, in order to seize power for himself, he called in the Soviets to help him. The struggle between the two opposing Angolan clans did not have anything of a people's revolutionary character.

The fight between them was a struggle of cliques for power. Each of them was supported by different imperialist states. Agostinho Neto emerged the winner from this contest, while socialism did not triumph in Angola. On the contrary, following the intervention from abroad, Soviet neo-colonialism has been established there.

Social-imperialist China, too, is making great efforts to penetrate into the former colonial and semi-colonial countries.Hoxha then goes on to note China's relationship with the reactionary Mobutu. In his diaries he also notes that China supports UNITA solely because it is anti-Soviet, and notes that this has basis in Mao's "Three Worlds Theory," which negates class struggle and promotes an alliance with US imperialism.

[Seth]

Because, in the eyes fo stalinism, children are cattle to die and be eaten, not people.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Because, in the eyes fo stalinism, children are cattle to die and be eaten, not people.

From your blog: Seriously. I've been here a little over a month, and it seems like the various leftist factions hate each other more than they hate the ruling class or the fascists. Is it really that much to ask that people understand where the other side is coming from? I thought this was a discussion forum, not an attack forum or a gladiator arena. The dumbness comes from Stalinists, Trotskyists, anarchists, etc in equal measure, so don't act like some sect is more responsible than another. If you only have something trollish, snobby, humorous (meant to attack or a reductio ad ridiculum) don't say anything. Geezus. I bet this drives so many workers away from the left. I've about had enough of it, mostly from petty one-liners.

BTW Stalin died before the MPLA was formed.

[GatesofLenin]

Because, in the eyes fo stalinism, children are cattle to die and be eaten, not people.

Off your meds again?

[SemperFidelis]

Maybe its their culture? They probably have to man up and be independent at very young ages there.

[North Star]

This is not to defend child soldiers, but the notion of a childhood is a recent invention in industrialized countries. Youth culture certainly didn't take off until after WW2 in the West, and child labour existed well into the early 20th Century in the West. So given the level of development in Africa, it's not surprising that this happened. It's not a symptom of the "problems" of African cultures but a symptom of a lack of development in sub-saharan Africa. I'd disagree with Ismail that UNITA was initially more popular than the MPLA. I've never come across that before. In fact MPLA wiped out FNLA and almost wiped out UNITA until Western (and Chinese) aid came.

[Sir Comradical]

This is not to defend child soldiers, but the notion of a childhood is a recent invention in industrialized countries. Youth culture certainly didn't take off until after WW2 in the West, and child labour existed well into the early 20th Century in the West. So given the level of development in Africa, it's not surprising that this happened. It's not a symptom of the "problems" of African cultures but a symptom of a lack of development in sub-saharan Africa. I'd disagree with Ismail that UNITA was initially more popular than the MPLA. I've never come across that before. In fact MPLA wiped out FNLA and almost wiped out UNITA until Western (and Chinese) aid came.

Plus the life expectancy in Angola at the time hovered around the 40 mark.

[ComradeOm]

There are two primary reasons for the emergence of child soldiers: children are cheap and guns are cheap. If you've got no moral objection to it then giving guns to children is a cheap way to wage war


Though I do not imagine there was any forced conscription for children, unlike other particularly reactionary African forces backed by the Americans.So these children were volunteering to be soldiers?


...but the notion of a childhood is a recent invention in industrialized countries. Youth culture certainly didn't take off until after WW2 in the WestWell no, this isn't true at all. Conceptions/expectations of childhood have obviously changed but it is most certainly not some "recent invention". What is a recent development is the emergence of the child soldier. The involvement of children in war in precapitalist societies very rarely extended past logistical/support roles (squires, drummers, deckhands, etc) and was intended as training for a future frontline role. Conscription of children into actual combat roles has almost always been a sign of desperation or impending defeat

To speak specifically of Africa, the most obvious example of this process was the age-grading of the Zulus. Yet even within this militaristic caste system a child would only become a warrior around the age of 17-18. There is no history there of child soldiers. Yet if your thesis were true then we would expect to some correlation - either in Africa or Europe - between economic backwardness and child soldiers

[piet11111]

There is a reason soldiers are called infant-ry

[Rafiq]

So these children were volunteering to be soldiers?



Yes, that would be my guess. I would imagine that through family, tribe, etc., they were indoctrinated with say, nationalist or patriotic propaganda or the likes and decided to join in on the cause.

I know this because in Lebanon it would be the same thing - kids would find it a great honor to fight among the ranks of different types of militias, and would idolize them.

I'm not 'morally' defending this, however, I doubt that they were forced in through gunpoint. Either way it is pretty fucked up.

[Rafiq]

There is a reason soldiers are called infant-ry

Yes, I don't find the presence of child soldiers to be humorous in any way, and, neither should you.

[Hiero]

There are two primary reasons for the emergence of child soldiers: children are cheap and guns are cheap. If you've got no moral objection to it then giving guns to children is a cheap way to wage warWell what do you think about this?
http://davidderrick.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/polish-szare-szeregi-fighters-during-the-warsaw-uprising-1944.jpg

These are Polish children fighting NAZI's occupation in WW2. Where they not suppose to fight?

Each situation has to be analysis in it's given context.

[ComradeOm]

What about it? :confused:

Or have I failed to appreciate that some people might not be able to make the distinction between desperate military emergencies and deliberate policy to equip and field tens of thousands of gun-totting children?

[Rafiq]

And another thing to note, the American backed UNITA activly engaged in the sexual enslavement of many young girls, and would starve them to death if they didn't do their "Duty as a women" such as harvesting food for the soldiers. A lot of the soldiers were "Married" to underage women.

Also, sex with little girls was a reward for good efforts. A lot of girls were kidnapped and sexually abused as a result.

I would imagine maybe one of those boy's sisters was a victim of this, maybe his parents were killed, who knows. there could be a lot of reasons.

[Hiero]

What about it? :confused:

Or have I failed to appreciate that some people might not be able to make the distinction between desperate military emergencies and deliberate policy to equip and field tens of thousands of gun-totting children?

It was you who put it into moral terms saying "If you've got no moral objection to it then giving guns to children is a cheap way to wage way". Now you have turned it to a moral relativist argument.

[ComradeOm]

I would have hoped that everyone here could see the obvious moral difficulties with arming children and expecting them to kill. If you can't then you've got issues

Which is why historically there have been relatively few examples of mass use child soldiers. Exceptions borne of military desperation - such as in both Warsaw and Berlin - are merely testaments to this. Even these are fundamentally different from the MPLA's use of thousands (or tens of thousands) of child soldiers over the span of decades

An obvious parallel would be the Romanov children. Obviously their execution was necessary but it can hardly be comfortable and no one is going to propose imposing the death penalty on children as standard punishment. That does make the execution of children any less unappetising

But then maybe you don't care about morals because you're a Scientific Socialist who's renounced such bourgeois conventions as actually giving a damn about forms of child abuse

[Hiero]

I would have hoped that everyone here could see the obvious moral difficulties with arming children and expecting them to kill. If you can't then you've got issues



Exceptions borne of military desperation - such as in both Warsaw and Berlin - are merely testaments to this.


An obvious parallel would be the Romanov children. Obviously their execution was necessary but it can hardly be comfortable and no one is going to propose imposing the death penalty on children as standard punishment.

You don't even realise what our saying and the contradictions you are making. In your own words it is clear that the moral difficulties are not obvious at all, but are relative. At least in your position.

Someone whose moral opinon unequivocally does not support the arming of children or the executions of children would not give Warsaw uprising and the execution of Romanov children as expections.



But then maybe you don't care about morals because you're a Scientific Socialist who's renounced such bourgeois conventions as actually giving a damn about forms of child abuse

Hey don't put it back onto me, all I asked you for was consistency. You obviously do not have a complete and total moral obligation to child soliders and execution of children. You have stated exception where you believe it acceptable to arm children and execut children.

[The Insurrection]

Well what do you think about this?
http://davidderrick.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/polish-szare-szeregi-fighters-during-the-warsaw-uprising-1944.jpg

These are Polish children fighting NAZI's occupation in WW2. Where they not suppose to fight?

Each situation has to be analysis in it's given context.

Are you making the argument that there are times when it's OK for children to fight wars?

[ComradeOm]

You don't even realise what our saying and the contradictions you are making. In your own words it is clear that the moral difficulties are not obvious at all, but are relative. At least in your position.

Someone whose moral opinon unequivocally does not support the arming of children or the executions of children would not give Warsaw uprising and the execution of Romanov children as expections.I'm sorry, have you constructed a strawman or just failed to read my posts? It's not obvious

There is no contradiction in my statements. It is quite clear - one might say obvious - that I do not support the use of child soldiers. It is equally clear - and this is a distinction that I have made in all three posts - that this may be a necessity in "desperate military emergencies". That does not make it any less uncomfortable, merely tolerable. You, and only you, have come up with this bizarre notion that just because I find something morally unappetising I would never, ever, ever, condone it's use

In this case the deaths of the Romanovs or armed children in the ghettoes become unfortunate but understandable. It would obviously be better had these never happened but they were nonetheless necessary. Moral qualms can therefore be overcome. The same cannot be said of the mass employment of child soldiers by the MPLA

Really, this is not difficult and should be obvious from my above posts. I don't know where you got this notion from that it is impossible to find something distasteful but necessary

[CommieTroll]

Because, in the eyes fo stalinism, children are cattle to die and be eaten, not people.

That's just the typical crap that doesn't add to the thread in any way which makes me question me having a RevLeft account. ''Children are cattle to die and be eaten''? Are you out of your fucking mind? Next you'll be telling me I'm automatically a necrophiliac because I'm ''an evil, filthy Stalinist'', grow up

[Hiero]

Are you making the argument that there are times when it's OK for children to fight wars?

I was asking other people.

My argument is that children will fight in wars where their is no space for childhood. They will also fight in wars where their is no resouces to imagine a future. If their isn't the means to demarcate space between warzones and peace areas, where soldiers are found in the former and children in the later, the two are going to cross naturally. And secondly without the prospect of a future self, a temporal self will take charge. In other words if you can't imagine the progression of self into the future, having a wife, starting family, starting a buisness, building a house etc then you are not going to demarcate between childhood and adulthood. That is from people forcing children to fight in wars and children volunteering to fight in wars.

Take Palestine as an example, certian people claim that the paramilitaries and militias use children, as either as soldiers or human shielfs. But places like Gaza get turned into warzones, where children are around. A children is turned into a soldier when their school is bombed and tanks roll down the street. In Palestine they are going to be involved in resistance because Israel denies them childhood.


I'm sorry, have you constructed a strawman or just failed to read my posts? It's not obvious

There is no contradiction in my statements. It is quite clear - one might say obvious - that I do not support the use of child soldiers. It is equally clear - and this is a distinction that I have made in all three posts - that this may be a necessity in "desperate military emergencies". That does not make it any less uncomfortable, merely tolerable. You, and only you, have come up with this bizarre notion that just because I find something morally unappetising I would never, ever, ever, condone it's use

In this case the deaths of the Romanovs or armed children in the ghettoes become unfortunate but understandable. It would obviously be better had these never happened but they were nonetheless necessary. Moral qualms can therefore be overcome. The same cannot be said of the mass employment of child soldiers by the MPLA

Really, this is not difficult and should be obvious from my above posts. I don't know where you got this notion from that it is impossible to find something distasteful but necessary You did not use thoose words to being with. You stated:



There are two primary reasons for the emergence of child soldiers: children are cheap and guns are cheap. If you've got no moral objection to it then giving guns to children is a cheap way to wage war

But now you are stating more reasons. That there isn't just opportunistic reasons child soliders emerge, but rather that there are understandable situations where it is neccassary that children will become soldiers and be executed.



I don't know where you got this notion from that it is impossible to find something distasteful but necessary

I never argued that because you never stated it.

I was not failing to read your posts, I was merely inquring for some depth. You have provided more to give some depth to your opinion, but don't act like these were obvious from the start. You shouldn't assume that the assumptions you have made are obvious to everyone. Just look back through your posts.

[ComradeOm]

You did not use thoose words to being with. You stated:Are you telling me that I have wasted my time on this bullshit because you are incapable of putting two sentences together and drawing conclusions from them? Here's a tip: read the whole post before slicing it into tiny quotes

It should be perfectly clear - and I have clarified this a number of times subsequently - that I have made the distinction between using child soldiers as standard procedure (such as the MPLA's use of thousands over decades) and that forced upon an army/group as a response to a desperate military scenario. The distinction between the two being, to state the bleeding obvious, that the former is deliberate policy advocated and pursued with the intention of waging war as cheaply as possible; the latter scenario is one in which event have dictated that child soldiers must be used as a temporary emergency measure. No one believes, for example, that Polish children would have continued to serve in the armed forces had the Warsaw Uprising been successful

This is not me adding reasons, this is me spelling out what it said in my first post but that you didn't pick up on


You shouldn't assume that the assumptions you have made are obvious to everyone. Just look back through your posts.Usually I abide by the dictum that a failure to comprehend is in fact a failure to communicate. In this case however I don't see how I could have possibly been clearer. From my very first post in this thread I laid out two possible scenarios in which child soldiers have typically been employed - as a "cheap way to wage war" and "desperate military emergencies". You however decided to ignore the second line and launch into a tangent about "moral relativism"

I could have perhaps prevented this by adding a line to that second paragraph (like: hey, I don't particularly like this but these emergencies happen. So don't conflate them with my previous statement which relates to standard use of child soldiers today) but I try not to treat people like idiots until they prove to be. So yeah, I'm pretty pissed that I've wasted time on this whole thing

[A Marxist Historian]

Why ? Didnt the Cubans and Soviets voice oppostion to this? The FNLA and UNITA do not appear to have done this.So why the MPLA?.I remember seeing a clip of Cuban reporters actually interviewing Child MPLA groups considering this can anyone pose an explanation?

http://clivelimpkin.com/wp-content/gallery/main_gallery/1976_01_29_angola_cigs.jpg

MPLA Child Soldiers in Angola (1976 )

Using children to fight is definitely questionable, but it happens, and sometimes that's exactly what the children want.

Take the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King consciously decided to put children in the front lines, hoping that the southern cops brutalized them, this would shock the nation.

they did, and it did. Like it or not, this was one of the most successfull tactics employed.

OTOH, Malcolm X had a very low opinion of this, and of the civil rights movement in general.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Are you making the argument that there are times when it's OK for children to fight wars?

Under Nazi occupation? Damn right!

-M.H.-

[Red Future]

http://clivelimpkin.com/wp-content/gallery/main_gallery/17akid.jpg
14 year-old Boy soldier interviewed by Cuban Radio during Angolan War.

It's fair to deduce that Cuba was supportive of the MPLAs actions in Angola in regard to recruiting anyway.

These Soldiers are even younger

http://clivelimpkin.com/wp-content/gallery/main_gallery/16cret.jpg

(Notice the Augustino Neto T-Shirts)

[Rafiq]

ComradeOm don't be a prick. I said it was fucked up how they used children.

And btw, the execution of the romanov kids was not ordered by Lenin or Trotsky. Local Bolsheviks did it without any orders. Lenin didn't punish them for it, though. I don't think the exectuion of them was necessary...

[A Marxist Historian]

ComradeOm don't be a prick. I said it was fucked up how they used children.

And btw, the execution of the romanov kids was not ordered by Lenin or Trotsky. Local Bolsheviks did it without any orders. Lenin didn't punish them for it, though. I don't think the exectuion of them was necessary...

It was. The Whites were about to seize the town and liberate the royal family, and there was simply no way to get them out in time.

So if the children had not been executed, one of them would have been crowned as Tsar of all the Russias, and the Whites would have received a tremendous shot in the arm.

The Russian Civil War was a close run thing. That could have been just what the Whites needed to win.

-M.H.-

[Hiero]

but I try not to treat people like idiots until they prove to be.Or you are just an arrogant person who doesn't like to have to explain yourself.



So yeah, I'm pretty pissed that I've wasted time on this whole thing Who cares if you're pissed, if you didn't get offended by someone asking you for further clarification on another scenerio where children were involved in a war you wouldn't be pissed.

Get over yourself. Learn to communicate with people. It is called having a disucssion