[Z]

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; the overall perception held of them by the public depends on whether or not they were successful in achieving their aims. Mandela did, which is why he didn't remain languishing in a cell for the rest of his life, considered to be a terrorist by the international community.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Zee

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; the overall perception held of them by the public depends on whether or not they were successful in achieving their aims. Mandela did, which is why he didn't remain languishing in a cell for the rest of his life, considered to be a terrorist by the international community.

Thanks Zee,he was an interesting man.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Zee

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; the overall perception held of them by the public depends on whether or not they were successful in achieving their aims. Mandela did, which is why he didn't remain languishing in a cell for the rest of his life, considered to be a terrorist by the international community.

That's not strictly true is it zee?
If you're protesting humanitarian issues and not trying to enslave or indoctrinate anyone against another group simply fighting for the freedom and rights of individuals then it's different.

His capacity for forgiveness. The same prison guard he had with him in all his years in prison, was there with him when he was sworn in as pm as well. He renounced violence, and forgave the white people that were still trying to ****** him over at the same time.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That's not strictly true is it zee?
If you're protesting humanitarian issues and not trying to enslave or indoctrinate anyone against another group simply fighting for the freedom and rights of individuals then it's different.

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.

[smudgie]

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.

[Kizzy]

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.

Woah... It's not ancient history and it's not just been written by the winners, let's just keep a little perspective stick to discussing apartheid don't fly off on a tangent there is no comparison to WW2 due to the fact hitler was a fascist dictator, Mandela was not.

[Z]

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.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Woah... It's not ancient history and it's not just been written by the winners, let's just keep a little perspective stick to discussing apartheid don't fly off on a tangent there is no comparison to WW2 due to the fact hitler was a fascist dictator, Mandela was not.

I didn't equate them, I merely brought it up as an example of how people are viewed because of how the international community perceives an individual's political achievements. I am still discussing apartheid - I believe Nelson Mandela was a great man, I'm just pointing out that there are people who will consider him a terrorist because violence was experienced on both sides; two wrongs don't make a right.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Zee

I didn't equate them, I merely brought it up as an example of how people are viewed because of how the international community perceives an individual's political achievements. I am still discussing apartheid - I believe Nelson Mandela was a great man, I'm just pointing out that there are people who will consider him a terrorist because violence was experienced on both sides; two wrongs don't make a right.

People in the international community?...
He decided to fight fire with fire after many years of trying the diplomatic way resulting in hundreds of thousands of black South Africans being killed...
Then when there's conflict he was labelled a terrorist?
What was the alternative, without his influence apartheid would still be in place.
It's quite simplistic to say two wrongs don't make a right I feel.
Historically he will be considered a freedom fighter, and it is written on both sides he did everything in his power to create change before violence was used.
Who else in history can we say that about?

[Z]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

People in the international community?...
He decided to fight fire with fire after many years of trying the diplomatic way resulting in hundreds of thousands of black South Africans being killed...
Then when there's conflict he was labelled a terrorist?
What was the alternative, without his influence apartheid would still be in place.
It's quite simplistic to say two wrongs don't make a right I feel.
Historically he will be considered a freedom fighter, and it is written on both sides he did everything in his power to create change before violence was used.
Who else in history can we say that about?

I'm not saying what he did wasn't necessary nor am I saying he isn't a great man; I'm answering Kazanne's question about why some people call him a terrorist. There are two sides to every coin and just as Nelson Mandela represents the oppressed who finally overthrew the people oppressing them; there were people who felt negative effects from Mandela's (and others like him) brutal campaign to eradicate apartheid. I believe violence is always wrong; fighting for peace is after all a contradiction. Historically he will be considered a freedom fighter, a figure of change and one of the most important Africans in modern history. But he is a human being who faced a great deal of sorrow and struggle to get to that point, which is why there will always be people who point out the nasty side of how he achieved his goals.

Vladimir Lenin did everything in his power to create change before violence was used to get rid of the Romanovs, in order to make life better for every day people. He overthrew an oppressive monarchy to introduce communism, a fair life for all. He didn't live long enough to see his goals be realised, sadly for him, but is he remembered as a freedom fighter; someone who brought about change for the good of his people? No, the context of what the Soviet Union later became completely changed that perception of his good work.