[Kazanne]

Been meaning to ask this for ages . This is a serious question , not to annoy or piss anyone off , I genuinely want to know as I feel ignorant about the subject,I have seen the love etc poured out for Nelson Mandela ,I ashamedly know nothing about him just snippets from the news etc but I have also over the years heard people scorn him and call him a terrorist,why do people say that , is there a reason? as he seems to be widely adored , a summary on him would be great . I know I could probably read a book but haven't got the time just would like to hear roughly what he did.

[Niamh.]

Well, he fought for civil rights for black people in South Africa, the organisation he was part of did use violence at times to try and overthrow the government/get rid of apartheid which is why he was labelled a terrorist and imprisoned

[Kizzy]

Agree with that he tried for years to use peaceful protest but were met with extreme violence, when they retaliated they were labelled terrorists and so imprisoned or killed.

[Kazanne]

Thanks Kizzy and Niamh,at least I have an idea now.

[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.

[Livia]

This is quite a good synopsis, Kaz:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/nelson_mandela

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Livia

This is quite a good synopsis, Kaz:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/nelson_mandela

Thanks Livia will have a look at that,and all those who have tried to educate me

[Kizzy]

Hmmm yep it's good, it skips the work some of our current government did to keep him imprisoned...

[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?

[user104658]

If you look a little further down the rabbit hole there are some darker aspects to the story and a few unanswered questions but basically he was a good man with a very strong will, who has been elevated to something beyond that (I would say paragon status, if not already then definitely in the years to come) because of what he came to represent (rather than his actions). Not that he didn't do a LOT of good, of course - and not that this is any different for most deified historical figures. I don't really think there's any problem with that, either, if what a person becomes a symbol of is something good.

But yes - obviously the "legend" that will be told and the balls-and-bones truth of the man's life will have a few differences.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Been meaning to ask this for ages . This is a serious question , not to annoy or piss anyone off , I genuinely want to know as I feel ignorant about the subject,I have seen the love etc poured out for Nelson Mandela ,I ashamedly know nothing about him just snippets from the news etc but I have also over the years heard people scorn him and call him a terrorist,why do people say that , is there a reason? as he seems to be widely adored , a summary on him would be great . I know I could probably read a book but haven't got the time just would like to hear roughly what he did.

I suggest to take the time out from your busy life and read up on Nelson Mandela, maybe then you might show a little more respect and stop bringing out terms like "terrorist"...!!!!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

If you look a little further down the rabbit hole there are some darker aspects to the story and a few unanswered questions but basically he was a good man with a very strong will, who has been elevated to something beyond that (I would say paragon status, if not already then definitely in the years to come) because of what he came to represent (rather than his actions). Not that he didn't do a LOT of good, of course - and not that this is any different for most deified historical figures. I don't really think there's any problem with that, either, if what a person becomes a symbol of is something good.

But yes - obviously the "legend" that will be told and the balls-and-bones truth of the man's life will have a few differences.

Rabbit hole? This isn't a laudinum inspired fairy tale... This is recent black history,
(reading between the lines) I don't feel you grasp the importance he had on making South Africa free for all.
There's no need for a 'legend' as the truth is there, it's not denied or diluted there was violence yes it was called 'terrorism'... What was apartheid?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I suggest to take the time out from your busy life and read up on Nelson Mandela, maybe then you might show a little more respect and stop bringing out terms like "terrorist"...!!!!

I suggest you stop being so rude ,I asked a question and most people have answered it

[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.

[Kizzy]

Well said kaz, what's the point in a discussion forum if you don't discuss anything?

[Nemo123]

Bobby Sands, RIP.

Now there was a martyr!!

[Jemal]

Learn something new everyday.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well said kaz, what's the point in a discussion forum if you don't discuss anything?

I just didn't see any need for the sarcy remark at all,why do I have to read a book when people are explaining it quite well in here,I can see both sides and am finding peoples opinions and knowledge really interesting.