Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
What do you mean it's not strictly true? History is written by the winners. The perception of politics and how people, incidents, wars and policies are remembered depends on whether or not they were successful in their aims. Would Hitler be reviled and internationally condemned as evil if he'd won the war? No, the history books would have been written by Nazis who would have hailed him as a great leader who rightfully claimed Lebensraum for the Aryan race to prosper. Or to put it the other way round, why is Winston Churchill considered a hero for his war time leadership of Britain when he was also a renowned sexist with controversial politics of his own? Because he successfully defended Britain's integrity in World War II. Do not for a second think I'm comparing Nelson Mandela's fight against apartheid to either of those things; I am not, I'm simply stating that the perception of a politician and his politics completely depend on whether or not they were successful in achieving those aims and whether or not the majority of people agreed with them or not. What one person might call a hero, another might call a villain. A great deal of violence ensued in the struggle against apartheid on both sides - just because the end goal was achieved, doesn't excuse everything that happened in between. We don't forget the atrocities committed in World War II, the lives lost or the brutality of it, we shouldn't gloss over the fact that the same happened (on both sides) in South Africa too.
|
Yes, we'll said.
He was a terrorist in the early days.
He was one of the top men in the MK, Amnesty International dropped him when he decided that violence was the way forward.
The fact that he eventually became such a loved and admired person shows that he was forgiven..the same way he gave forgiveness.
Plenty of wrong on both sides.