Would Mandela be considered a terrorist today? He was until 2008...

[Zguy28]

I've been reading a few articles lately about the life of Nelson Mandela, and obviously most news outlets and politicians and facebook posters give him uncritical praise. However, I was watching a video from a South African missionary and it got me to do a little digging into the actual history of the man. Apparently in his younger years he was a leader of a militant band of revolutionaries who carried out bombings and murders of civilians including women and children and farmers. Also this is why he was imprisoned, not for non-violent protest like Martin Luther-King (which Mandela apparently denounced). and it is worthy to note this was part of the fight against apartheid, but still the facts remain on the means he took to accomplish the end. Amnesty International even refused to take up his case because they said his imprisonment was not political, but rather due to acts of violence.

Now step forward to the current year, President Obama stated that the Boston bombing would be investigated as acts of terrorism, because, “Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror.”

He said "Any time. . . .”, does that include when Mandela's targeting planning the bombing of civilians?

Yet when addressing the death of Mandela only a few months later, the same president said, “We’ve lost one of the most influential, courageous, and profoundly good human beings that any of us will share time with on this earth.”

These are two contrasting articles I've read on the subject. Interesting how information is forgotten or processed today by people and what ends justify what means.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/nelson-mandela-a-candid-assessment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/12/07/why-nelson-mandela-was-on-a-terrorism-watch-list-in-2008/

PS. and lest someone accuse me of racism (yes its happened to me merely for bringing up this), I think we all agree that Apartheid is WRONG.

here is the original video I watched. i found t interesting, even if you don't agree with the social views of Mr. Hammond.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

In this case I share Newt Ginrich's views on Mandela:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/gingrich-vs-the-right-on-apartheid-what-would-you-have-done/282138/

 

Some of the people who are most opposed to oppression from Washington attack Mandela when he was opposed to oppression in his own country.
 

After years of preaching non-violence, using the political system, making his case as a defendant in court, Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech.

 

As Americans we celebrate the farmers at Lexington and Concord who used force to oppose British tyranny. We praise George Washington for spending eight years in the field fighting the British Army’s dictatorial assault on our freedom.

 

Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

 

Thomas Jefferson wrote and the Continental Congress adopted that “all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

Doesn’t this apply to Nelson Mandela and his people?

 

Some conservatives say, ah, but he was a communist.

 

Actually Mandela was raised in a Methodist school, was a devout Christian, turned to communism in desperation only after South Africa was taken over by an extraordinarily racist government determined to eliminate all rights for blacks.

 

I would ask of his critics: where were some of these conservatives as allies against tyranny? Where were the masses of conservatives opposing Apartheid? In a desperate struggle against an overpowering government, you accept the allies you have just as Washington was grateful for a French monarchy helping him defeat the British.

 

 

[twa]

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Is No Vice....unless ya lose   

[Corcaigh]

Sure. But it's easy to make the argument that the South African government practiced state terrorism against its own people during that time. And many western governments, including the USA, colluded with and openly supported these practices.

[robotfire]

If he actually sought out and killed innocent people, then he is not like George Washington.  If he only killed to stop oppression and gain freedom, then that's another story.  It sounds to me like he committed some cold blooded murder, which pretty much negates everything else.  As great as David was for slaying Goliath, he still killed Uriah.  He blew it big time, and it's not a "no biggie".  I'm not Mendela's judge, but nobody can argue that intentionally shedding innocent blood is alright.

[Sticksboi05]

If he actually sought out and killed innocent people, then he is not like George Washington.  If he only killed to stop oppression and gain freedom, then that's another story.  It sounds to me like he committed some cold blooded murder, which pretty much negates everything else.  As great as David was for slaying Goliath, he still killed Uriah.  He blew it big time, and it's not a "no biggie".  I'm not Mendela's judge, but nobody can argue that intentionally shedding innocent blood is alright.

 

I'm pretty sure the goal of the attacks before his arrest was specifically to damage government infrastructure.  Innocents were killed but not intentionally.

[Bliz]

even if you question his tactics as a young man, does that mean you ignore everything he did and stood for later in life?

Is a "terrorist" incapable of growth and redemption?

You can't argue with what he did later in life, so I have to wonder...what is the point of this discussion?

[Zguy28]

even if you question his tactics as a young man, does that mean you ignore everything he did and stood for later in life?

Is a "terrorist" incapable of growth and redemption?

You can't argue with what he did later in life, so I have to wonder...what is the point of this discussion?

sure, if you are only talking about apartheid. We all agree that was bad and should be opposed. With regards to other things he stood for, personally I have no problem arguing against them e.g. Abortion, communism/Marxism...

I do believe that a person can be redeemed, I'm a Christian remember?

[HeluCopter29]

Some people can't just allow for good things and people to exist....

 

Conversations like this are better left not had.

[Special K]

Before calling Mandela a terrorist (as so many who have seem to be pretty ignorant about the dynamics of South African politics during the apartheid era), I would highly suggest reading Mandela's autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom."  Not only is it an amazing book, but in it he actually explains the environment the racist apartheid government created during that horrible time period and the factors the opposition movement had to deal with.  

 

He initially began his opposition "career" by preaching non-violent opposition against the government, but an indiscriminate slaughter by the Afrikaner government of innocent civilians during Sharpville protest changed the "game" in his eyes (in regard to publicly voicing his support for violent opposition).  At that point he helped the ANC organize an underground military faction that conducted multiple bombings against strategic government targets. 

 

I think if more people took the time to read and actually think about his thoughts and reasoning used during that point in apartheid history, there would be a lot less ignorance spewed publicly about the opposition tactics supported by Mandela and the ANC...

 

Finally, I think looking at his overall life, particularly the last couple decades, and the methods he used to unify a violently divided South Africa says about all that needs to be said about his character.  If people want to continue calling him a terrorist after seeing all that, well, I don't really know what to say.

[Destino]

Some people can't just allow for good things and people to exist....

Conversations like this are better left not had.

It's an uncomfortable topic that requires people wade into topics that are easily taken out of context and misrepresented. This is something I'd enjoy discussing in a Freemason lodge, not on the Internet.

[JoeWolf990]

The US Government considered Mandela a terrorist until the late 80s and supported Apartheid.

You have not heard much mention of it because the USA was on the wrong side of history.

[Bliz]

even if you question his tactics as a young man, does that mean you ignore everything he did and stood for later in life?

Is a "terrorist" incapable of growth and redemption?

You can't argue with what he did later in life, so I have to wonder...what is the point of this discussion?

 

 

sure, if you are only talking about apartheid. We all agree that was bad and should be opposed.

 

I'm not only talking about apartheid.  I'm talking about that, his presidency and reconciliation.  You know...the things that define his legacy.

 

With regards to other things he stood for, personally I have no problem arguing against them e.g. Abortion, communism/Marxism...

 

 

Oh, you mean the things that are irrelevant to his legacy and this conversation?

 

I do believe that a person can be redeemed, I'm a Christian remember?

 

I know that.  It was intentional, and meant to underscore my question, what is the point of this thread?  Even if he could have been considered a terrorist as a younger man (and I wouldn't categorize him that way), what defines his legacy is what he did after his imprisonment.  Not before it.  So I ask again, what is the point?

 

 

You complain that you have been accused or racism for bringing this up, but you have to understand...  This argument, that he was a terrorist and shouldn't have been honored by politicians in the US and elsewhere, is most commonly raised by racists who want to undermine his legacy for obvious reasons.  The people who inundated Newt and Ted Cruz and others with these allegations, which led to Newt's response in Braveonawarpath's post above, aren't historians or people legitimately debating at what point a govt becomes so oppressive that violence is justified.  They are, by and large, racists, trolls and/or anti-MSM ideologues who are being manipulated by racists. When you raise a talking point that is a favorite of these people, you risk getting lumped in with them. 

[Riggo-toni]

Menachem Begin was a terrorist, but what we remember him for most is the Camp David accord.

Michael Collins was the original modern day terrorist. The success of his tactics provided the blueprint for Irgun, the PLO, and countless others. Ultimately, he chose compromise and tried to take the guns out of Irish politics. To the Irish, he is the father of their country.

Arafat, by contrast, was always solely concerned with his own survival, and sparked more violence when presented with a deal that would have accomodated Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza while not acceeding to the demands of diaspora Palestinians. I doubt anyone will remember him as fondly.

Mandela was a terrorist, but ultimately he had both the wisdom and the fortitude to not only compromise, but also forego any acts of vengeance. His tenure as President was nothing short of extraordinary, displaying an unparalleled combination of magnanimity and political shrewdness. Like Washington, he was enormously popular and could have usurped power and stayed on as President for life, but chose instead to leave the institutions of democracy firmly in place.

[PeterMP]

I don't think Mandela himself was ever tied to a murder or even somebody dying.  His conviction doesn't include muder or conspiracy to commit murder, but sabotage and (they were blowing up infrastructure) and attempts to over throw the government.

 

I don't think any evidence that somebody died from a bombing that Mandela was involved in was presented at his trial.

 

His wife is a different story, but for much of his time in prison he rarely saw her.

[The Sisko]

Menachem Begin was a terrorist, but what we remember him for most is the Camp David accord.

Michael Collins was the original modern day terrorist. The success of his tactics provided the blueprint for Irgun, the PLO, and countless others. Ultimately, he chose compromise and tried to take the guns out of Irish politics. To the Irish, he is the father of their country.

Arafat, by contrast, was always solely concerned with his own survival, and sparked more violence when presented with a deal that would have accomodated Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza while not acceeding to the demands of diaspora Palestinians. I doubt anyone will remember him as fondly.

Mandela was a terrorist, but ultimately he had both the wisdom and the fortitude to not only compromise, but also forego any acts of vengeance. His tenure as President was nothing short of extraordinary, displaying an unparalleled combination of magnanimity and political shrewdness. Like Washington, he was enormously popular and could have usurped power and stayed on as President for life, but chose instead to leave the institutions of democracy firmly in place.

You beat me to it Riggo-toni. Israel is a good example to use here because they're considered one of our staunchest allies and are given carte blanche by many, especially evangelicals because of the religious angle and by most everyone else because they're fighting against an enemy. However by their own admission Israel was brought into being via the use of terrorist tactics, not only against the Arabs but against Britain and other Jews as well:

 

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war… We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today…”  ---Yitzhak Shamir

“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal… What you lot don’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it.”   ---Ariel Sharon

Obviously the Israelis weren't the only ones using such tactics. However my point here isn't about them per se but rather about the fact that we're more than willing to turn a blind eye to terrorism and other unsavory acts when the perpetrators are our allies and especially when it's us, i.e. the U.S.

 

To flip things around, would you consider Reagan a terrorist because he supported the South African government and by extension the state terrorism they were using against their own people? Or do you believe that our policy of the ends justifying the means when it came to opposing communism was OK?

 

Opposition to communism then raises the issue of who gets to define who's a terrorist and who's not. Not unlike Assad in Syria, the S. African government through the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950 classified pretty much any political dissent as "communism". The only problem was that their definition of communism amounted to, well, any political dissent. Not only did it give them pretty much full power to silence anyone in S. Africa, it also had a political motive in maintaining western support as part of a policy called the Total National Strategy.

 

Aside from the issue of us turning a blind eye toward some terrorists, I think many of us think of apartheid as being much like American segregation. In fact, it was much, much worse. In addition to the racial angle, or perhaps simply using it as an excuse, apartheid was created as an effort to impoverish Blacks for two reasons, remove them as competition and to create a cheap labor force for S. Africa's mines. Therefore is it any wonder, given the many "benefits" that Blacks received under so-called capitalism and the active opposition from the U.S. that Mandela and the ANC would embrace communism?

 

http://economics.mit.edu/files/7641

Between 1890 and 1913 this African economic boom would come to an end and go

into reverse. During this period two forces worked to destroy the rural prosperity and

dynamism that Africans had created in the previous 50 years. The first was antagonism

by European farmers who were competing with Africans. Successful African farmers

drove down the price of crops that Europeans also produced. The response of Europeans

was to drive the Africans out of business. The second force was that the Europeans

wanted a cheap labor force to employ in the burgeoning mining economy, and they

could only ensure this cheap supply by impoverishing the Africans. This they did

methodically in the next several decades.

 

The 1897 testimony of George Albu, the chairman of the Association of Mines,

given to a Commission of Inquiry pithily describes the logic of impoverishing Africans

so as to obtain cheap labor. He explained how he proposed to cheapen labor "by simply

telling the boys that their wages are reduced." His testimony goes as follows:

 

Commission: Suppose the kaffirs [black Africans] retire back to their kraal [cattle pen]? Would

you be in favor of asking the Government to enforce labour?

Albu: Certainly I would make it compulsory Why should a n****r be allowed to do nothing?

I think a kaffir should be compelled to work in order to earn his living.

Commission: If a man can live without work, how can you force him to work?

Albu: Tax him, then

Commission: Then you would not allow the kaffir to hold land in the country, but he must work

for the white man to enrich him?

Albu: He must do his part of the work of helping his neighbours.

(quoted in Feinstein, 2005, p. 63)

 

Both of the goals of removing competition with white farmers and developing a large

low wage labor force were simultaneously accomplished by the Native Land Act of

1913. The Act, anticipating Lewis's notion of dual economy, divided South Africa

into two parts, a modern prosperous part and a traditional poor part. Except that the

prosperity and poverty were actually being created by the Act itself. It stated that 87

percent of the land was to be given to the Europeans, who represented about 20 percent

of the population. The remaining 13 percent was to go to the Africans. The Land Act

had many predecessors of course because gradually Europeans had been confining

Africans onto smaller and smaller reserves. But it was the Act of 1913 that definitively

institutionalized the situation and set the stage for the formation of the South African

Apartheid regime.

 

Given the above, I have a hard time understanding what took Mandela and the ANC so long. Since the S. African government's response to non-violent protest was assassinations, indefinite detention without trial, massacres of civilians, disappearances, and declaring all protests as communist, etc. I personally would have abandoned nonviolent protest way, way, way sooner than Mandela and the ANC did. Quite frankly, the S. African government gave them no choice and as a result, I'd place most, though certainly not all, of the resulting White civilian deaths on them as they forced the ANC's hand. Likewise, our government also bears some responsibility for backing the S. African government.

 

So feel free to consider him a terrorist if you will as that's up to individual interpretation. However there's a lot more grey area there than some want to consider, whether for racial or other reasons. My personal take is that he was too lenient on S. Africa's Whites in redistributing land and other reforms. As a direct result, the structure of the S. African economy hasn't changed nearly enough.

[Corcaigh]

When you raise a talking point that is a favorite of these people, you risk getting lumped in with them. 

 

If you walk like a duck, and talk like a duck ... don't act all surprised when Phil and his bearded family try to blow your head off.