Quote:
Originally Posted by latenga
Exactly. While he was great in his reconciliation rather than retribution practice, everybody forgets that he essentially founded a Marxist terrorist cell that bombed many civilian targets while he was imprisoned, and could've been released sooner if he'd have denounced those terrorist acts.
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/3-things...elson-mandela/
Bonus points, google "mandela necklace"
He also pretty much sold himself and his country to De Beers as a shill. |
I am fully aware he was a freedom fighter, and the mandela necklace was the winnie mandela necklace.
This isn't the place or time for a big discussion/argument, but he admitted his faults, before his imprisonment the violence was against property, not people, and part of the reason for the violence during apartheid from the whites was an intemperate and irrational fear of anything communist.
It is easy to hear 'violence' as being violence against people, but this is an assumption.
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.
But why did he not renounce violence? Totally obvious, he would not renounce violence because the whites would not renounce violence. It would not have been equal. It would have politically and morally defeatist.
When you talk about 'terrorist acts' it brings to mind something quite different to the blowing up of electricity pylons.
His 'terrorist acts' were more like the actions of the French resistance. No doubt Germans considered them terrorists and Marxists.
Like I say, too complex and too many assumptions and not the right time/place to have a great debate/battle. Life is complex. I tend to have greater trust in what the leading white politicians of the time say rather than random posters.
].
