I saw someone quote this on facebook the other day too. I don't know enough to know if it is true or not but given it is widely considered to have been a just cause I don't see how it lessens his acheivements. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter etc?
Why does the media get to choose who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter? Who got to choose whether his cause was just? I'm sure most terrorists see their actions as fighting for a just cause, and obviously this is easier to acknowledge but plenty of governments have taken action that could result in attacks that could be argued as someone "just cause". Mandela has a whiter than white reputation, and I'm really struggling to see why. If I renounce my actions afterwards that makes everything ok? The only way to judge these terrorist/freedom fighter situations is to say any violence is wrong, unless it perhaps prevents further violence, but this does lead us onto another slippery slope. This is making my head hurt. Everyone talks about his lack of bitterness post release from prison, but how can he be bitter if he was fairly incarcerated?
edit: For someone praised as such a peaceful man, praising dictators doesn't seem too great.
I don't think it is really the truth. Nelson Mandela helped found Spear of The Nation, which was the armed wing of the ANC. The original aim was sabotage, and I don't think there were any deaths before he was imprisoned the year after. Given he was imprisoned for sabotage then I think I am right here. Blaming him for the subsequent change in strategy is obviously a big step that the article doesn't really explain. That big step doesn't seem consistent with some of the statements attributed to Mandela.
He would be jailed in the UK for his offences, so I don't think there can be any complaint there. There were arguments that some of the others shouldn't have been jailed and the jail sentences were very long. I am not going to pretend he never ever did anything wrong because that would be ridiculous. He did have some very good reasons for what he did.
Given the white on black killings at peaceful rallies previous to the formation of Spear of The Nation then responding with a campaign of sabotage doesn't really put him up there with Gerry Adams and Bin Laden.
His opposition to retribution given all the provocation from the years of apartheid; the many years of imprisonment; the deaths at peaceful marches; the deaths of some of his friends etc. He had the power to reek his revenge, he chose not to use it, it is what makes him a bit of a hero to people like me.
I'm just asking about the other side. One mans anti-apartheid revolutionary, another mans terrorist I guess. It does seem like he didn't directly take violent action but possibly contributed towards the policy change. You seem to imply I don't think he was a good man simply for asking questions. I plainly admit in the first post I don't know everything (anything).
I intended to imply I thought the article was malicious, not that you were. I baulk a bit where I read the glowing articles too, as there is a definite question mark about his role in the armed struggle.
I agree with a lot of things Camel said, and although you could rightly label some of his actions as "terrorism", I think it is much easier to see him as a freedom fighter than most.
A lot of the issues around apartheid are probably burned into my brain because a lot of this was happening whilst I was developing an interest in politics and current affairs, and these were the events I first felt strongly enough to protest about. If you were very young or not born then, then you aren't going to remember the events aren't going to be nearly as vivid for you. If it all happened 10 years earlier, I'd probably be a bit less grouchy. I fully understand how people born after apartheid had started to crumble wouldn't feel so strongly about these issues.
I think he has spent so much of the last few years as a force for good, that you should be able to forgive him for some of the things he may have done earlier.
As an aside to this, I don't think you did just ask questions.
You linked to the article and then stated "he obviously did a lot of good things as well", which doesn't feel like you are putting the right weight on the good and bad things he did. You also said you struggled to understand why he had the reputation he had, and that "The only way to judge these terrorist/freedom fighter situations is to say any violence is wrong".
Anyway time is probably better spent discussing PLO8.
Author