[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.