Talk:Idi Amin

The article [[JanuBeasts and Fishes" and the "Last King of Scotland". -- Someone else 00:18 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I guess I'll just echo everyone else's thoughts. May pain be brought on him, slowly.

"When they [Asians] refused [to leave], Amin's forces went on a widespread campaign of genocide" - I've taken this out because (a) the expulsion left too few for widespread anything; (b) I know of no evidence to support the charge of genocide against those who remained; and (c) you don't have to throw every allegation you can think of at someone to make a plausible case that they were mad, bad or both. Graculus 16:43 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Much the same goes for the overall death toll: while 300,000 seems to be commonly offered, figures range from 100,000 to 500,000, with the average (for what it's worth, which isn't a lot) probably nearer 200,000. Of course nobody was really counting, least of all the pundits who merrily throw these figures about. I've relaced "executed" as implying a level of organisation and precision that simply wasn't there. 195.92.67.71 07:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

24.65.52.97 removed the following passage: "His dark black skin, routund apperance and ridiculously over-decorated military uniforms made him seem clownish and amusing to much of the world, and to the racist regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia a clear example that native Africans were incapable of governing themselves."

Should it be put back? Den fjättrade ankan 23:10 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I put it back. It's accurate. Idi Amin was a moron, and he had dark black skin. The two are not connected, if that is what he fears is being alleged.

user:J.J.

Dark black skin can be expected from a president of Uganda. Do you have evidence that he had particularly dark skin even by Ugandan standards? --Wik 00:23, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

We're not talking about Ugandan standards, if you look at the context of the remark it is made refering to outsider perceptions of Amin. The fact that his skin was so dark was certainly a key part of the western perception of him, and is well illustrated in the caricatures and editorial cartoons of the time. user:J.J.

Cartoons naturally focus on and amplify a person's most distinguishing features, that doesn't prove much. But wasn't it more his behaviour than his skin colour that made him seem amusing to much of the world? --Wik 20:26, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

You keep focusing on the one word instead of the context. The paragraph in its entirety is relevant and accurate. It's time to stop getting so politically correct and paranoid everytime race is mentioned. user:J.J.

It is paragraphs like this one that make Wikipedia look more like a discussion forum than an encyclopedia. Here is what is wrong with it:

We are talking about a man who caused the death of at least a hundred thousand men, women and children. In the face of a human tragedy of such proportions, it is not simply "politically incorrect" to refer to the person responsible for these crimes as "quite charming", it is an insult to the victims of his regime. If you had lost your daughter or your wife to this murderer, what would you think when reading this paragraph? For this reason alone, it is entirely out of place, inappropriate and unprofessional.
"Dark black skin" and "rotund appearance" are stereotypical, utterly racist descriptions, especially when followed up by "made him seem clownish and amusing". A "rotund", "dark black" person automatically becomes "clownish and amusing", according to this sentence. Would you write the same about a US congressman? "Newt Gingrich, whose pale white skin and rotund appearance made him seem clownish and amusing.."
The racism continues in the last paragraph: "a clear example that native Africans were incapable of governing themselves". Because the military ruler of Uganda has dark black skin, is overweight and wears overdecorated uniforms (as many military rules before and after him have done) "native Africans were incapable of governing themselves"? This time the racism is hidden in attribution to other racists, but I doubt that these regimes ever actually argued on that basis. More likely, they pointed to Amin's disastrous policies and his murderous regime as evidence that the white people were needed to keep the "order".

JJ, I realize you are a political cartoonist and as such may view other human beings as potential caricatures. This paragraph, however, is unprofessional, false, devoid of meaningful content and utterly inappropriate. That does not mean that there are not aspects of Amin's reception worth writing about. Yes, Amin was portrayed as a clown in western media, and reporters ignored his crimes and instead focused on his eccentricities. Amin was, after all, a longtime ally of the United States, so the tens of thousands slaughtered could be overlooked. But what a charming, amusing guy he was, ha ha!—Eloquence 02:48, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I think the point and conext of the paragraph continues to be overlooked. Everything that was said in that paragraph is true. At around the time Idi Amin became a prominant figure, there was much mocking and joking about his regime in the west. And like it or not, rightly or wrongly, a great deal of it was racist in tone. People saw photos of this fat little man, with really dark skin, and his crazy uniforms, and they thought it was funny. Many probably thought it was strange to see an African like him "trying" to rule a country. I've read repeatedly that the racist regimes in Southern Africa used his eccentricites as justification for their policies. They said people like Amin proved that Africans were too childish and stupid to rule themselves. It doesn't make me racist to point this out. On the contrary, I am trying to show how an underlying and often patronizing racism was to blame for the easy ride Amin got for many years.

And like it or not, Idi Amin could be a charming fellow, and he was pretty entertaining at times. He would make jokes, and jump into the pool with his clothes on, and drive his sportscar around, play the accordion, and do other crazy stunts to amuse reporters and other observers. People can be charming and evil. To indicate otherwise is foolish, and makes the article into just a flat criticism against Amin, instead of a multi-deminsional profile that focuses on different sides of his personality, and various perceptions thereof. user:J.J.

This is all very vague and unspecific. Show me citations, and we can talk about including these claims in attributed form. Describing a murderer as "quite charming", without attributing this description, is not neutral, nor is the rest of the paragraph, which goes so far to attribute its claims "to much of the world".—Eloquence 23:05, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I fail to understand the basic logic here. If a man is a killer, therefore he can never be charming? This makes no sense. Do all killers have to fit a certain stereotype? Perhaps you should watch the excellent DVD doccumentary General Idi Amin Dada which shows the many sides of this dictator's personality, and how he interacted with amused reporters. I'm not arguing a freak position here. I'm sure anyone who lived through the time period can back up what I'm saying. user:J.J.

Greenman: Where do you get C-in-C 1970 from? My sources say 1966, in return for backing Obote against the Kabaka. Graculus 11:21 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's one source for the date, though most references don't seem to have dates, so I've got my doubts: [1] - Mail and Guardian - Greenman 12 Aug