I voted other, since I hear mixed things about him and I'm not really too sure what to think yet.
Nelson Mandela was not an ordinary South African be he black or white. He was smart, well educated and even practiced law. Not an ordinary South African during the 1950's and 60's.
But then again, Che Guevara wasn't an ordinary man, well educated attending University of Buenos Aires and becoming a doctor before resorting to terrorism, leftist like to call him a freedom fighter.
anybody can claim or be named a freedom fighter, it is up to the people who are affected by the actions of the person to decide. In this case the people of South Africa have rallied around him and he unified a country. In the cases of other "freedom fighters" such as bin Laden, he was able to secure the blessings of few, but 99% of Islam did not feel the same way. That is the difference. While obviously not every South African loves Mandela, it is surely easier to find a Mandela lover than a bin Laden lover in their home territory.
Run your own nation, play Cybernations."Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
- Mark Twain
He was victorious, and was therefore a freedom fighter. When you lose, you're a terrorist, because the other side is writing the history books. That's pretty much the difference.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
He was a little of both. He certainly was not a completely non-violent man, so if that is the sort of person you admire he is not up there with Gandhi or MLK, who has been compared to. In the end though he believed his actions were justified, because after all he lived in a society where the white minority actively oppressed blacks and prevented them from having a political voice. He had no option to vote down Apartheid, the only options he had were 1) convince whites that the morality of the situation outweighs their self-interest and abolish it within their electoral system 2) go the Gandhi route and only use non-violent civil disobedience and 3) use violence. He did a combination of 2 and 3.
Should he have used violence? I'm not sure. I believe it is only justified if no other solutions are possible and you live under such repression that there is absolutely no democratic option to change things you do not like. Morally you cannot criticize Mandela and also say that the founding fathers of the USA were justified, because in the end they did the exact same thing. I myself, in spite of being a patriotic American, don't think revolution was necessarily the only solution at the time and I think had they failed we would probably be a commonwealth realm with self-government. Even so what happened happpened and I support my country. In the same way I think Mandela could have theoretically ended Apartheid without any of the violence the way Gandhi drove the British out of India, either way we should just be glad it ended.
But Mandela's column was about him addressing all of the violence and racism there is in South Africa today. More today than when he was released from prison in 1990. And Mandela admitted it.
But what I had a problem with was Mandela almost sounded like Obama. Instead of Mandela blaming the NAC government for what went wrong in South Africa, he blamed apartheid, like how Obama always blamed Bush for everything. A sign of a narcissist. Aparthied ended over twenty years ago !
Maybe if Mandela would have served two terms as President things would have been different today in South Africa ???
The problems in South Africa today aren't Mandela's fault but the NAC fault. If the NAC even moves a few inches to the left, South Africa will become another Zimbabwe.
But if I do find that column, I'll post it. Kinda enjoying reading all of the South Africa forums. They look at things differently.
☮★★☮ Just a democratic-socialist in the heartland of America.CHECK OUT MY TUMBLR(BLOG)HERE "Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence, and enjoy it to the full."