[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.