Nelson Mandela-Freedom fighter or wicked terrorist

[Gentleman]

Of course the subtle difference is that the resistance in Germany didn't then form a government chock full of their cronies and basically continue the regime through other means such as only ANC members put in charge..ie under white rule majority of blacks in poverty, under new improved freedom loving ANC majority of blacks living in poverty lorded over by nelsons mates including the kidnapping murdering misses.

[David Johnson]

There are two different questions here.

Question 1 which is what this thread is about. In terms of the use of violence by the ANC against the apartheid regime, was the leader of the ANC, Nelson Mandela acting as a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

Question 2 which is completely separate and has nothing to do with Question 1 is having got into power, how have the ANC done in meeting the aspirations of their supporters.

[David Johnson]

You may wish to have a gander at this, particularly the sections on Apartheid Legislation, forced removals and petty apartheid:



and compare that with the current situation.

This contains a realistic summary of the successes and many failures of the ANC in power.



Do black South Africans want to go back to the apartheid situation? I doubt it somehow.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> Was Mandela a terrorist or a freedom fighter?
>
> The answer to this question is largely down to your political
> views.

No, it doesn't. That's too simplistic a view.

>
> Were the Germans who tried to blow up Hitler at a staff meeting
> in the Second World War freedom fighters or terrorists? Well
> if you are a fascist who thought Hitler a great leader you
> would believe that they were terrorists. If you felt that
> Hitler was a cruel, racist dictator leading Germany to
> destruction, they would be viewed as freedom fighters.
>
> The same with Mandela. Black people were treated as subhuman
> by the South African apartheid system. If you have political
> views that support black people being treated as subhuman then
> Mandela is a terrorist.

To compare the abhorrent apartheid system with Nazis is a bridge too far. As far as I know South African blacks weren't sent to gas chambers. They didn't live in concentration camps. They didn't have to wear yellow or pink stars. Their lives were unpleasant but then so are the lives of many who live in Africa today whether under elected leaders or dictators.

>
> On the other hand, if you believe that ultimately, black people
> in South Africa had the right to fight for their freedom and
> the end of an extremely oppressive apartheid system then
> Mandela is a freedom fighter.
>
> In many situations for the oppressed to ask their government
> "Pretty please can we have our citizenship and rights" is not
> going to produce the desired result, hence the need for people
> to fight for their freedom.

True ? which also nails the lie that governments never talk to terrorists. They always talk to terrorists.

Finally, that doesn't explain why there is a statue to Mandela in Parliament Square. Why is he recognised in this country? What is his contribution to the UK to warrant such an honour?

[one eyed jack]

The way I see it, the runaway slave nat Turner was a terrorist of his day

He was also a man taken from Africa and sold off. He was a hero to slaves but a terrorist to the famillies he slaughtered.

The point is, it depends on your point of view. Can acts of evil negate the acts of evil bestwoed on the person from his oppressors equal the balance

Just sounds like the hate that hate produced stuff to me

A man fighting for his country and freedom by any means necessary will always be a hero because he was fighting against the bad guys. His oppressors. Sure he wasnt very nice about it but not everyone is as peaceful as Gandi

Was William Wallace a hero?

Was William The Conqueror a hero?

[max_tranmere]

It all depends on one's point of view as to whether it was ever justified to carry out militant activity in order to achieve ones political aims. If a community is treated like dirt, like the Catholics in Northern Ireland were and the black people in South Africa were, then some would argue that it can be justified. The IRA killed civilians although they always tried to minimise that by giving telephone warnings, they also killed people who criticised them, which I have always thought was very out of order. The ANC in South Africa put tyres round peoples necks, poured petrol all over them, and set them alight. Very nasty activity. The IRA later apologised for the killings of all 'non combatants'. I don't know if the ANC ever did.

[David Johnson]

"No, it doesn't. That's too simplistic a view."

You offer nothing to support your view.

Clearly, the old adage "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" is as true now as it ever was. So whilst to Thatcher the IRA were terrorists certainly in public, to many of the Catholic community in Derry the likes of Martin McGuinness was a freedom fighter, fighting for equal treatment for Catholics in terms of jobs and housing.

"To compare the abhorrent apartheid system with Nazis is a bridge too far. As far as I know South African blacks weren't sent to gas chambers. They didn't live in concentration camps. They didn't have to wear yellow or pink stars. Their lives were unpleasant but then so are the lives of many who live in Africa today whether under elected leaders or dictators."

I have re-read my post and absolutely nowhere do I compare the Nazis with apartheid. The Nazis started a world war. I cannot recall the South African apartheid regime doing so.

I merely point out that if you were a German fascist those who tried to kill Hitler would be regarded as "terrorists" whilst German Jews would regard them as "freedom fighters" i.e. one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

"Finally, that doesn't explain why there is a statue to Mandela in Parliament Square. Why is he recognised in this country? What is his contribution to the UK to warrant such an honour?"

That is an extremely simple question to answer. In 1961, South Africa formerly a member of the Commonwealth, declared itself a republic and left the Commonwealth because of the large amount of criticism it was receiving over the inhuman apartheid regime.

In 1994, South Africa returned to the Commonwealth as a multi-racial democracy under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. He said: ?The Commonwealth makes the world safe for diversity.?

Great statue, don't you agree?

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> "No, it doesn't. That's too simplistic a view."
>
> You offer nothing to support your view.

My points were made later in the posting. You must have seen them ? you replied to them.
>
> Clearly, the old adage "one man's terrorist is another's
> freedom fighter" is as true now as it ever was. So whilst to
> Thatcher the IRA were terrorists certainly in public, to many
> of the Catholic community in Derry the likes of Martin
> McGuinness was a freedom fighter, fighting for equal treatment
> for Catholics in terms of jobs and housing.

Not just to Thatcher but to every right-thinking person and I write as a Catholic.

>
> "To compare the abhorrent apartheid system with Nazis is a
> bridge too far. As far as I know South African blacks weren't
> sent to gas chambers. They didn't live in concentration camps.
> They didn't have to wear yellow or pink stars. Their lives were
> unpleasant but then so are the lives of many who live in Africa
> today whether under elected leaders or dictators."
>
> I have re-read my post and absolutely nowhere do I compare the
> Nazis with apartheid. The Nazis started a world war. I
> cannot recall the South African apartheid regime doing so.
>
> I merely point out that if you were a German fascist those who
> tried to kill Hitler would be regarded as "terrorists" whilst
> German Jews would regard them as "freedom fighters" i.e. one
> man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

If that is not a comparison, what is?

>
> "Finally, that doesn't explain why there is a statue to Mandela
> in Parliament Square. Why is he recognised in this country?
> What is his contribution to the UK to warrant such an honour?"
>
> That is an extremely simple question to answer.

Well, answer it then. What has Mandela done for this country?

In 1961, South
> Africa formerly a member of the Commonwealth, declared itself a
> republic and left the Commonwealth because of the large amount
> of criticism it was receiving over the inhuman apartheid
> regime.
>
> In 1994, South Africa returned to the Commonwealth as a
> multi-racial democracy under the leadership of Nelson Mandela.
> He said: ?The Commonwealth makes the world safe for diversity.?

A stupid statement. How does the Commonwealth affect Kosovo, Nigeria, USA or any other country?

>
>
> Great statue, don't you agree?

No. It shouldn't be there. Move it to Cape Town or Pretoria...

[David Johnson]

You seem to be getting very irritated because I do not agree with you.

"A stupid statement. How does the Commonwealth affect Kosovo, Nigeria, USA or any other country?"

Well the Commonwealth rightly or wrongly is still viewed as important by the political establishment and Mandela brought South Africa back into the "Commonwealth family".

I will leave you to inflict your irritation with life and the universe on someone else.

[Cuntybollocks]

Thank you to everyone who has answered.

I think David and OEJ have nailed it however, it depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on.

There should be NO fence.