[jd_free]

Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history. Millions of people think he was put in jail for protesting apartheid or something else noble. He was actually a terrorist leader - his group killed thousands of innocents in bombings and other attacks. The "activism" he's credited with while in prison was mostly arranging more killings.

Read about a practice his group created while he was in prison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

[mrleinad]

This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others. You can't make a revolution without guns, when the other side has all the power and lots of guns as well. Almost all independence wars (and I say almost, because there's this nice dude Gandhi, but I'm not sure it was an actual war) were fought with weapons, not with flowers and nice thoughts. If you're from the US you should know better, considering that your Constitution clearly states (paraphrasing) that you have a right to bear arms, in case the government tries to take away your freedoms.

[gwern]

> This is the same bull*t that is thrown at Castro, Che Guevara, and many others.

Bullshit? Should we infer that you think Castro's Cuba was a smashing success and has totally justified all the bad things he and his followers did?

[tcdent]

Care to elaborate on "all of the bad things"? If there's anything to take away from this discussion on Mandela, it's that there are a lot of misunderstandings about what actually happened, especially if you are primarily informed by American media.

[noarchy]

"all of the bad things" seem to continue:

Cuba remains the only country in Latin America that represses virtually all forms of political dissent. The government of Raúl Castro continues to enforce political conformity using short-term detentions, beatings, public acts of repudiation, travel restrictions, and forced exile. Although the Cuban government released dozens of political prisoners on the condition that they leave the country, the government continues to sentence dissidents in closed, summary trials. The government has also relied increasingly upon arbitrary arrests and short-term detentions to restrict the basic rights of its critics, including the right to assemble and move freely.

http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba

Another source for info, if you don't like HRW: http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba

[thiagoharry]

As a third world inhabitant who really saw all the "wonders" of capitalism here, I really don't consider Cuba a bad place to live. Travel restriction? We also have this here because only rich people have money to travel. "Move freely"? We have this only to people who can afford this. Beatings, detentions? We also have these things for people who lives in slums. I already talked with cuban people and people who really traveled to Cuba and the place really isn't the hell described by the american media.

The cuban government pursuit dissidents? How difficult is to identify legitimate dissidents from spies and people financed by enemy nations in a country so attacked by hostile powers? A country that suffers from sabotage, embargo and terrorism with a little help from the CIA (like the apartheid).

From my perspective I can relate Mandela's struggle with Fidel and Che's struggle. A lot of african countries can thanks Cuba for their independence. 300 000 cuban soldiers were sent by Castro to fight for the independence of african countries and 10 000 died there. To ilustrate what I'm saying, this is a speech by Nelson Mandela spoken in 1991:

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1991/19910726-1.ht...

[mrleinad]

How about this quote to reply to your post, and we remain on topic as well?

"Freedom is meaningless if people cannot put food in their stomachs, if they can have no shelter, if illiteracy and disease continue to dog them." - Nelson Mandela

I encourage you to read about how illiterate people were before Castro, and after Castro. Also if there was hunger, if people could afford to go to a doctor, and how unequal their society was.

[noarchy]

I don't want to get drawn into a false dichotomy. The pre-Castro period was no paradise, I'm fully aware.

[oijaf888]

Singapore is like that too but we don't seem to single them out for it do we?

[noarchy]

You're right. For North Americans, Cuba is local, and is discussed far more often. Singapore is definitely not without its issues (http://www.hrw.org/asia/singapore), and you'd be very hard pressed to find a state that doesn't abuse its power to some degree. Some are obviously worse than others.

[tcdent]

I don't think most Americans understand the second amendment, even if they are in support of it.

[jd_free]

So, you equate Mandela with Castro and Guevara, and consider that a good thing? Care to through bin Laden in there?

I guess fighting British soldiers is exactly the same as necklacing civilians, too, so it's fair to compare it too the US revolution.

[mjb]

> He was actually a terrorist leader - his group killed thousands of innocents in bombings and other attacks.

Mandela was extremely conflicted by the ANC's (and, more specifically, MK's) use of violence against the apartheid government. He saw it as a regrettable tool to be used to achieve better ends. It's clear from his later writings (his Time essay about Gandhi, for example) that he, at least, regretted needing to take these actions.

You're also going to need to present citations for "thousands of innocents". While it is true that civilians were killed in MK bombings, "thousands" is a gross exaggeration. It's also interesting to compare these actions to those being taken on the other side, with the program run under Basson as a very good example. The TRC findings make it clear that both sides were involved in some really unpleasant and unacceptable activities, and Mandela did indeed know about many of MK's uglier secrets, but to cast him as a terrorist only interested in killing civilians is unfair and historically inaccurate.

On the other hand, I suspect you're just a troll, so I'm not going to convince you with evidence.

[newman314]

This is all well in good when you are having an armchair discussion. I suspect you would respond different if you were informed: "We regret this but we are going to have to kill you" (read in the voice of a Vogon)

[jbooth]

It's pretty amazing that we've got all these brand new accounts showing up, all to make sure that we're aware of what a terrible person Nelson Mandela was.

I had no idea this movement existed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing to do with race, I'm sure, they're just pacifists who oppose violence in all forms. If they were being oppressed by black people, they'd never have resorted to violence.

[mjb]

> I had no idea this movement existed, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm a South African. I am constantly disappointed by the amount of time and emotional energy some South Africans (and expats) put into historical revisionism and apartheid denial. There are many reasons for it, but it's worth reminding yourself that in 1992 more than 30% of South African voters voted to continue apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_apartheid_referen...). History is ugly, recent history especially so.

[iends]

There seems to be revisionism on both sides. Before yesterday did not know that Mandela started the armed branch of the ANC which actively bombed government buildings and while Mandela was in prison (and maybe not involved) bombed public places where innocent people were killed.

This isn't judgement, this is me as an American being shocked that the media and historical portrayal I've encountered never mentioned these facts (although, it's certainly not secret and not something I've investigated).

[ilitirit]

> Before yesterday did not know that Mandela started the armed branch of the ANC which actively bombed government buildings and while Mandela was in prison (and maybe not involved) bombed public places where innocent people were killed.

Here's the other difficulty - people hear "armed wing of the ANC" and then are too shocked to even consider the context.

That he started MK should be hailed as good thing. It played a pivotal role in avoiding an all-out civil war. MK gave activists (many of whom were in fact white people) an outlet for their frustrations at the apartheid government. How was this anger directed? Destabilizing the economy by sabotaging government and military targets. The goal was force the government to give the ANC a legitimate hearing, instead of imprisoning civilians whenever they tried to protest.

If it weren't for MK, civil war would have been inevitable. People were fed up. 50 years of peaceful protest had amounted to nothing.

[jd_free]

Exactly. If you are under 35, there's a good chance you have literally no idea about anything bad Mandela ever did and believe that he was imprisoned for doing something Rosa Parks-like or something.

The fact that history can be rewritten like that is disturbing regardless of how it's used.

[sophacles]

Keep in mind, the so called peaceful protests in places that will result in authorities using violence are nothing but violent acts themselves! If you know your action will result in violence you are in fact participating in violence, so the "peaceful" actions are merely forms of inciting terrorism cynically calculated for maximum favorable spin in the weak minded!

Don't even get me started on the economic terrorism of strikes and work slowdowns. People not following the rules is just plain wrong no matter what!

/sarcasm

[PeterisP]

Why do people equate being a terrorist with being a terrible person?

If you're being oppressed and can't fix it by 'soap box/ballot box', then going to 'ammo box' and killing your oppressors is morally just and proper.

Is your country counquered by a foreign military occupation, as say, France in 1940's but also many other cases? Then participating in guerilla warfare and terrorism is perfectly understandable for morally sound, ethical people.

Is your country ruled by an oppressive dictator? Revolution, including terrorism against the ruling clique and military, and followed by armed rebellion (as, say, founding of USA) is morally justified in many such casses; simply allowing your nation to lose another generation while waiting for the dictator to go away is the immoral option.

It might be in my personal and my countries best interests for that particular occupation or that dictator to stay in power, and those particular terrorists to lose - indeed, it probably is so for some current global hotspots - but it doesn't mean that these terrorists/freedom fighters are evil people; they're simply fighting on another side, but if the fighting was needed to defend my community or nation, I'd consider such violence as not only ethically permissable, but as an ethical duty to take up arms and do as much as you can.

[ilitirit]

> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history.

Ironic, considering that your post is basically revisionism at it's finest.

Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela

Mandela was jailed for sabotage. MK was founded after the ANC's policy of "non-cooperation" was continually met with violent opposition from the SA government. Were they "terrorists"? No, the intent was not to spread terror or harm civilians. They only attacked government and military targets in ways which that would result in the least harm to civilians. This is exactly what he was sent to prison for - sabotage. There was zero evidence that he had a hand in any activities that led to civilian casualties (if there had been, he would have been hanged).

These "thousands of people" you claim that have been killed by MK (I'm not sure you can substantiate that) occurred while he has in prison. A large part of his sentence was carried out on Robben Island (Google it, it's literally an island) so he had little to no contact with the outside world, hence it would have been impossible for him to lead MK. He only found out about the group's activities when he was moved to a prison on the main land. And by then, his wife was running the show.

Yes, MK did bad things, especially under Winnie Mandela. But Nelson Mandela had no part in it. In fact, the differences in political ideology was a big factor in their eventual separation and divorce.

[anon808]

George Washington also resorted to violence, and if you're British during the late 1700s, you might even call it terrorism.

[danielweber]

There seem to be people who think that Mandela was a pacifist like Ghandi. I can buy the "was justified in the use of violence" angle, but he was supported the use of violence for political ends enough that Amnesty International refused to call him a Prisoner of Conscience at the time.

People are not totally good or totally evil.

[garg]

From what I am reading all this happened while he was in prison. ANC had violent members while Mandela was in prison but how does that implicate Mandela? Desmund Tutu saved a man from Necklacing so why then would he be such an ardent supporter of Mandela?

[scarmig]

In fairness, he started the military wing of the ANC, and his wife was involved in lots of very nasty stuff.

Those were bleak times, though; I'm sure Mandela himself thought as much. But for some reason you don't see the people so outraged about the relatively limited violence the ANC engaged in even slightly concerned about the constant terrorism and mass violence that the apartheid state directed against it's nonwhite residents. (I would say citizens, but they didn't even have legal formal citizenship.) And more than anything it's Mandela's performance after abolition that has cemented his reputation: he could easily have been another Mugabe, but he pursued restorative justice for both sides, not vengeance.

To paraphrase MLK...

I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that a political movement in a deeply repressed and violent society itself occasionally resorts to violence, but it is even more unfortunate that the country's white power structure left the coloured community with no alternative.

[scarmig]

You can read more about the crimes his group was involved in in the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission established after the abolition of apartheid.

[larrys]

You've raised some interesting points and I don't know enough to know if this is correct (other than what you are referring to and I don't even come close to knowing how to vet anything on this). But I do know that currently Mandela is seen as a saint (just watching the news last night alone would tell you that).

So I wonder if anyone with mainstream credibility has written or will write some definite document that confirms or denies what people are saying on either side of this issue?

[ismail]

I think the media you are watching are doing you a disservice and quite possibly the world media. They are portraying Nelson Mandela as some kind of grand-father to the country, and yes in the last 15 years he has grown into that role, but there was more to the man that.

He was not GREAT because he was a SAINT or a pacifist or forgiving. He was great, because he knew what needed to be done, and he did it at the right times.

When the peaceful resistance, the marching, the uprisings were not working, it was time for the armed resistance.

When the country was at the brink of civil war he reliased unity would be needed to ensure the country and people would be truly free.

He was great, because he could get people to see his view of the world, not by force, not by demanding but just by speaking to them.

He was not this cuddly teddy bear/saint that some here seem to think he was. When the time came, and he did what needed to be done, not for himself but for the people, for a cause and for freedom.

[larrys]

If anything it shows that you never obviously know the real story if you don't know all the details. Something that I always think and why I am so cynical and skeptical most of the time. There is always spin.

[at-fates-hands]

Here's an account of the trial which I thought was pretty detailed: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mandela/mandel...

I thought it was pretty telling he was offered his freedom if he denounced the violence the ANC was taking part in and he refused.

[larrys]

Actually now that I'm thinking about it last night I think Brian Williams (NBC) said that but he said it in a tone of voice that didn't make it seem bad. I thought about it a bit but forgot until you just made your comment. Shows you how the press can infer importance or not just by the way something is presented.

[mikebludd]

Black South African here It's a known fact that the ANC's guerilla campaign was largely a failure(most of the combatants were stuck in training camps across africa ).MK was founded after the Sharpeville massacre 21 March 1960 at which the apartheid gov killed 69 people who did not want carry ID's required for all black males.

[ZoFreX]

> Coverage of Mandela is a testament to the prevailing powers' ability to rewrite history.

I agree. It's quite amusing to see politicians that were definitively not on his side coming out after all these years in favour of him: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/06/follow-...

In response to the rest of your comment: wow such edgy.

[brown9-2]

Are you sure that it is fair to blame Mandela for what some parts of the ANC did while he was imprisoned? Did he have control over all of the factions then?

[smsm42]

That depends. Did he raise his voice against the practices and use the fullest of his authority to stop it, but failed, or did he accept the practices as something people do, but not talk about in the polite society?

[bilbo0s]

I downvoted you and wanted to explain, as the downvote was not for your content.

I, as a rule, downvote posts by sparsely populated, recently created accounts. Reason being, I generally believe them to be throwaway accounts created for the purposes of spamming and trolling. I think it does a disservice to HN to engage in that behavior.

I wanted to give you some advice on how to avoid downvotes in the future. If you have something to say... say it on your own account is probably the best piece of advice. Also, if you really are a new member, perhaps you could put more profiling information in the account you create so that people don't ascribe malevolent intent to your activities. I know that the older members don't need to do so... but they have a track record of useful contributions to discussions.

Lastly, if you are not a spammer or troll... Welcome to HN.

[tcdent]

Automatic downvotes for green accounts?! If that was a good idea, it would be built into the software.

Read, comprehend, and then interact based on the content. Meta posts like this are a waste of everyone's time.

[randac]

Perhaps you should exercise self-control and refrain from passing ANY judgement then, if your reasons for doing so are unrelated to the content of the posts in question.

[middleclick]

Oh look, someone is going all "respect my authoritah" here. You should stop taking imaginary internet points so seriously.