• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mandela, Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Or other (please explain)


  • Total voters
    34
Well we used unconventional warfare during the American revolution which probably would be labeled as terrorism, tar and feathering, and economic warfare....



"Merica **** yea!!!

I think it was King George who waged a economic war upon the Colonist that was why the Colonist revolted.

It was when King George didn't allow the Colonist to manufacture their own gun powder and put up an embargo from preventing the colonies to import saltpeter that lit the fuse for the revolution.

Like it or not, the United States was founded by the gun or in layman terms, King George's anti gun regulations.
 
I think it was King George who waged a economic war upon the Colonist that was why the Colonist revolted.
Dumping tea, boycotting, and attacking the wealthy brits would be considered terrorism. Picture this the British denying rights to the colonists (The white dominated South African gov(Afrikaners)) oppressing the Black South Africans), and the Colonists (the black South Africans (AKA ANC)) rebelling against them by almost all means.

It was when King George didn't allow the Colonist to manufacture their own gun powder and put up an embargo from preventing the colonies to import saltpeter that lit the fuse for the revolution.
Hmm imagine that i think you get the picture from my above said statement.

Like it or not, the United States was founded by the gun or in layman terms, King George's anti gun regulations.
What does this have anything to do with South Africa? Are you moving the goal posts again?
 
Serenity, make up your mind, was Mandela a "remarkable man" or an "ordinary" man ?

What an idiotic response to my post. You know exactly what i mean. Still, i would expect nothing less from you, at least your consistent.
 
In the light of Nelson Mandela's death, was Nelson Mandela a freedom fighter or a terrorist? Or "other" (please explain)?

He's a freedom fighters because I believe his goals and his enemy allowed for the tactics he used. Though I wish you hadn't resurrected this, the crazies are going to come out of the woodworks again.
 
I voted other, since I hear mixed things about him and I'm not really too sure what to think yet.
 
What an idiotic response to my post. You know exactly what i mean. Still, i would expect nothing less from you, at least your consistent.

Well I'll enlighten you.
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.
 
Well I'll enlighten you.
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.

That's just one of the reasons that Mandela was so incredibly special. From very early on in his llife he made clear his determination to champion equality for all of the people of South Africa. He didn't just sit back and turn a blind eye because he was in a better position than many others. Mandela's priority was ending Apartheid and he devoted his life to it. His vision was a desire for his fellow citizens to be able to live in a country where everybody is equal, rich or poor, black or white, able or disabled.
 
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.
 
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.
 
That's just one of the reasons that Mandela was so incredibly special. From very early on in his llife he made clear his determination to champion equality for all of the people of South Africa. He didn't just sit back and turn a blind eye because he was in a better position than many others. Mandela's priority was ending Apartheid and he devoted his life to it. His vision was a desire for his fellow citizens to be able to live in a country where everybody is equal, rich or poor, black or white, able or disabled.

I use to read some of Nelson Mandela's columns he use to write and were published mostly in South African newspapers. I searched for the one Mandela wrote two or three years ago. But with Nelsons death, in the past couple of weeks there been so much posted on the internet, tens of thousands I can't find the one I was looking for.

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.
 
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.

The ANC is very, very sad. Essentially the National Party was this highly corrupt political party whose real ideology was crony capitalism. They used racial bigotry to hide their true motives, which was to provide cheap black labor for the mines and other industries, while hiding behind racism and religion to keep the support of bigoted whites and maintain their own power, which if it was shown to be based on corrupt economic concerns would have been totally unjustifiable even for them. Case in point how they grandfathered in East Asian businessmen as white, while oppressing Indians in their own nation. If they were really committed to their ideology they would have never done this, but the Japanese had money so white supremacy sort of went out the window. The same was true of their allies with various corrupt black regimes elsewhere in Africa that they could hide behind and do their business deals.

Now the ANC comes along and is basically the exact same thing, but instead of hiding behind Boer supremacy and extreme Dutch reformed conservatism they hide behind black pride and "social democracy" or whatever ideology they claim to be. In the end though the ANC is really just a bunch of crony capitalists, the same thing as the Nationals in power. Mandela's main failure is that he had all this moral authority during his lifetime and was treated as the grandfather of the nation, and was so widely revered that he could have come out and said something about this but didn't.

I admire some of what Nelson Mandela did in his lifetime, and think we should honor the man for many things, including how forgiving he was to those who oppressed him, but he was by no means perfect. Even so nobody is perfect. In spite of this fault it doesn't mean I think he was a terrible person. In the same way I do not judge George Washington by the fact he owned slaves. I am sad that he had a moral blind spot on that issue, but so did many people at the time. Even so I honor him as the father of our country and one of its greatest presidents, who had the power essentially to rule as a king but voluntarily stepped down after two terms, setting a precedent. Plenty of revolutions happened in Latin America in the early 19th century where their leaders did the opposite, and it set a precedent for 200 years of dictators and revolution. So yes Mandela has this black mark as do many of our own founders, but I still admire him.
 
What are the South Africans saying ?
The American media has ignored South Africa for the past twenty years. Most Americans are clueless and younger South Africans have nothing to compare South Africa today. What they see is what they believe is the norm.

Excerpt:

>" After his organization had placed bombs on city sidewalks, in bars and restaurants and killed thousands of blacks in internecine power struggles, including by the infamous necklace method, Mandela was praised for preaching moderation and “reconciliation”. Mandela presided over hordes of sadists wantonly looting, burning and killing their fellows. Such incidence of violence and destruction was, as usual, reinterpreted and recoded by guilt-complexed white journalists and pundits as being pleas for democracy and togetherness. Or free housing, affirmative action and racial quotas in sport, all of which South African blacks deserve in copious amounts, as liberals and leftists clamorously assure us. Of course, riots, violence and sadism continue unabated in South Africa, but because there is now a black government and the perpetrators of such violence are black too, any criticism of such behaviour is expressed in muted tones, if at all..."<

The begaining of the article:

Mandela: muti for white guilt

>" Ever since Nelson Mandela died, but even before, one was utterly flabbergasted before the intensity of media fervour pouring out en hommage to the Big Man. In Africa, of course, there are all kinds of theories about Big Men, some more politically correct than others. The tribal elder meets the Soviet personality cult, and we get Idi Amin Dada. Or Charles Taylor. Or Robert Mugabe.

If there is one thing I can stand even less than African Big Men, it is British journalists convulsing on the ground in effusive praise of them. Who still remembers the blasts of praise from Fleet Street when Mugabe assumed power in the ex-Rhodesia? For much of the past ten days while South Africa lit the long-awaited Big Candle, visible from outer space without a doubt, we had to endure near-hysterical outpourings exalting the deceased ex-terrorist. One such scribe from the island north of the Continent – I forget which, there were so many this week – wrote: “Mandela could have been president for life but he chose to stay a single term, for the sake of democracy in Africa!”

Democracy in Africa. Oh, yes. If Mandela’s successor at the helm of this decaying country, Thabo Mbeki, were to be believed, democracy was invented in Africa. No less. The point is that there is now such an Afrocentric phantasmagoria, cultivated in Britain and the United States, that anything is now possible, even Mbeki’s “African century”. The notion that Africa will come to dominate the globe economically, politically and militarily, was first articulated by another African Big Man, born Joseph-Desiré Mobutu but whose full regal appellation afterwards became Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga..."<

Continue -> Mandela: muti for white guilt | praag.org
 
So? Are "progressives" supposedly all clear of wrong doing? What about Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2?

The progressives I'm referring to are the true progressives who were American nationalists or close to nationalist socialist. Before 1965, probably close to 90% of all Americans were nationalist.

Todays progressives aren't true progressives but something else hiding behind the progressive label. They should call themselves neo-progressives because they have hardly anything in common with the original progressive movement.
 
What are the South Africans saying ?
The American media has ignored South Africa for the past twenty years. Most Americans are clueless and younger South Africans have nothing to compare South Africa today. What they see is what they believe is the norm.

Excerpt:

>" After his organization had placed bombs on city sidewalks, in bars and restaurants and killed thousands of blacks in internecine power struggles, including by the infamous necklace method, Mandela was praised for preaching moderation and “reconciliation”. Mandela presided over hordes of sadists wantonly looting, burning and killing their fellows. Such incidence of violence and destruction was, as usual, reinterpreted and recoded by guilt-complexed white journalists and pundits as being pleas for democracy and togetherness. Or free housing, affirmative action and racial quotas in sport, all of which South African blacks deserve in copious amounts, as liberals and leftists clamorously assure us. Of course, riots, violence and sadism continue unabated in South Africa, but because there is now a black government and the perpetrators of such violence are black too, any criticism of such behaviour is expressed in muted tones, if at all..."<

The begaining of the article:

Mandela: muti for white guilt

>" Ever since Nelson Mandela died, but even before, one was utterly flabbergasted before the intensity of media fervour pouring out en hommage to the Big Man. In Africa, of course, there are all kinds of theories about Big Men, some more politically correct than others. The tribal elder meets the Soviet personality cult, and we get Idi Amin Dada. Or Charles Taylor. Or Robert Mugabe.

If there is one thing I can stand even less than African Big Men, it is British journalists convulsing on the ground in effusive praise of them. Who still remembers the blasts of praise from Fleet Street when Mugabe assumed power in the ex-Rhodesia? For much of the past ten days while South Africa lit the long-awaited Big Candle, visible from outer space without a doubt, we had to endure near-hysterical outpourings exalting the deceased ex-terrorist. One such scribe from the island north of the Continent – I forget which, there were so many this week – wrote: “Mandela could have been president for life but he chose to stay a single term, for the sake of democracy in Africa!”

Democracy in Africa. Oh, yes. If Mandela’s successor at the helm of this decaying country, Thabo Mbeki, were to be believed, democracy was invented in Africa. No less. The point is that there is now such an Afrocentric phantasmagoria, cultivated in Britain and the United States, that anything is now possible, even Mbeki’s “African century”. The notion that Africa will come to dominate the globe economically, politically and militarily, was first articulated by another African Big Man, born Joseph-Desiré Mobutu but whose full regal appellation afterwards became Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga..."<

Continue -> Mandela: muti for white guilt | praag.org

Remember when minorities finally have equality its always then "reverse racism" on the once oppressor.. Right APACHERAT?
 
The progressives I'm referring to are the true progressives who were American nationalists or close to nationalist socialist. Before 1965, probably close to 90% of all Americans were nationalist.
So what does that make conservative nationalists? Nationalist fascist? I mean c''mon we wanna play this ignorant game?


Todays progressives aren't true progressives but something else hiding behind the progressive label. They should call themselves neo-progressives because they have hardly anything in common with the original progressive movement.
Yes coming from the person who thinks marxists and the Nazis were one of the same. The great political philosopher like yourself should know all of this.

But dont mind me. Because you never answer the questions i ask you.
 
Remember when minorities finally have equality its always then "reverse racism" on the once oppressor.. Right APACHERAT?

Have you ever been to New Caledonia ?

Apartheid was practiced in New Caledonia for a lot longer than in South Africa.

It's been well over thirty years since I last been to New Caledonia, and there has been a couple of uprisings since then. But I didn't see any racism or reverse racism.

Funny, I still remember that Legionnaire when we were declaring are weapons with customs and he said "What's with you Americans and always having guns" ? :lamo
 
Once again allow me to point out, Mandela had many admirible qualities, and you cannot expect him to be perfect. It is just like George Washington and slavery, I am sad he did it but I still admire him as a figure. In the same way I admire Mandela for his good side, in spite of some of the bad he did.
 
Have you ever been to New Caledonia ?

Apartheid was practiced in New Caledonia for a lot longer than in South Africa.

It's been well over thirty years since I last been to New Caledonia, and there has been a couple of uprisings since then. But I didn't see any racism or reverse racism.
Whats this about New Caldeonia? Wait did you just admit it!? That apartheid is ok!?
Wait whats this about New Caldeonia? Wait? Is this New Caldeonia?

Funny, I still remember that Legionnaire when we were declaring are weapons with customs and he said "What's with you Americans and always having guns" ? :lamo
Wait are you moving the goal posts again?
Did you still not answer my question? I believe you still havent.
 
Back
Top Bottom