Thousands of white people have not died in SA thanks to Mandela. Mandela was not a 'terrorist'. Apartheid was BAD, and still affects the country significantly today. Here's some context for you. This all applied pre 1994/2:

I am a non white South African. The only reason I got a good education was because with the release of Nelson Mandela, my parents were one of few to study at a previously white only university, and qualify for positions previously reserved for whites only. They went on to run companies that they COULD NOT have run during Apartheid, have offices in places they could not have had before, have clients they could not have before etc. I live in a neighbourhood my parents could not have lived in prior to 1994, and study at a university my parents were not allowed to. These were white only areas only, because they are good.

My father was a lawyer during Apartheid. Black people were only allowed to represent black people. Almost all of the people he defended in court were put to death, in many cases before their trials were even heard by courts! Post apartheid, the death penalty was dropped.

My family had family friends that were white. They were never allowed to mix. My aunt wanted to marry a white (American) man but was forbidden to. They got married illegally. She was not entitled to live in the property he owned, as black people could not legally own property. She came close to being arrested many times.

Post apartheid my aunt and her white husband were married. She was allowed to legally own the property after he died.

My birth certificate does not have my parents names on it, due to Apartheid. Families were not formally recognised. I need to get an amended birth certificate to prove who my parents are, and I can now do this post apartheid.

My parents were also forcefully removed from their legally owned properties that were taken from them during Apartheid. Their property was seized by the government and never returned. My parents could barely even travel out of South Africa as flying over/travelling other African countries were restricted. They were even not allowed to enter many countries abroad.

And I'm not even 'Black'. My ethnicity is Indian. I am an Indian South Africa (of which there are millions). Everyone who wasn't white was counted as 'Black'. This accounts for over 85% of South Africa's population.

It is well known in SA that the US government actively supported Apartheid, and many people have a poor opinion of the US because of this.

If it wasn't for Nelson Mandela, I probably wouldn't even be able to post this. My family, and millions others, now live lives they simply could not have lived before.

Please explain to me how this is the work of a terrorist, or how in any way the work of the armed wing of the ANC was not justified by the Apartheid regimes massacre of innocent children and women , and torture of prisoners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soweto_uprising, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpeville_massacre, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Biko) and their numerous policies and their effects as explained above.

My dad had a dead end job because even though he was more qualified than his boss, a non-white could not be promoted to a position held by a white person. Neither my dad nor any of my uncles were allowed to participate in National Cricket, Rugby or Football teams. This led to the very interesting problem where a large portion of the population even today refuse to support any of the National sports teams. You're more likely for example to find a New Zealand Rugby supporter among the older "coloured" (the official term) community, than one who supports the National team. Even today my parents do not support South African sports teams (football was always the exception, because it was regarded as a "black" sport).

I was part of the first group of non-white people allowed to attend a "white" high school. The racism was terrible at times, and it filled me with resentment for the first few years. Afterwards though, I started noticing how my peers were becoming more open to other cultures and ethnicities, and with that the resentment faded.

Ironically, I too for many years believed Mandela was a terrorist who killed civilians, partly because the zeitgeist of my teen years was rebelliousness, and partly because I highly skeptic of anyone held in such high regard. Thankfully, my adult years proved that I was just being naive and willfully ignorant. Mandela was certainly no terrorist.

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/New-race-quotas-for-SA-rugby-...

Mandela was not a terrorist. He did not deserve jail. That he came out of that experience and did not engage in a campaign of retribution is a testament to the man's greatness. Those that denigrate him do so from ignorance or lack of empathy.

The real shame is that The Afrikaner nationlist party that instituted apartheid ran on the platform in 1948, the same year that the Dixiecrats in America ran on a segregationist platform. Apartheid started to crumble in 1990, less than 30 years after George Wallace, as Governor of Alabama, declared "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!", less than 25 years after he ran for President, and just over 20 years after MLK was assassinated.

Of course, by 1970 the situation in the U.S. was far better than it was in South Africa. But apartheid in South Africa was less far-removed, temporally, from segregation in America than most Americans appreciate. Ronald Reagan, who opposed Mandela as President, spent more of his life living in a legally segregated America than he did living in a legally integrated America.

My point was more that we consider segregation to be long-past history, while we consider Reagan to be a President of the modern era. In fact, Reagan was eight years older than George Wallace, and was in his 50's by the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Just because we can all agree that his cause was just, doesn't mean he should necessarily get a free pass from criticism or judgement.

Whether you call somebody a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" in response to these sort of actions is a matter of perspective. Movements don't get called "terrorists" by people who side with them.

We know this because, in other times in history against other wildly racist and tyrannical regimes, resistance movements have carried out similar violent attacks, but rarely do we hear those groups described as "terrorists". I have never heard somebody describe the French or Polish Resistance as terrorists; they receive the terminology "freedom fighters" because damn near everybody agrees that they were on the correct side of that fight.

So what is the deal with people who chose the "terrorist" terminology, rather than "freedom fighter", for the ANC and Mandela? Do they merely lack perspective, or are there actually still a significant number of people who side with the Apartheid government?

I'm not in the camp of calling him a terrorist, but I do get a bit annoyed (sometimes) when the hero-worship seems to present a skewed perspective on reality. For example, I'm annoyed that many US politicians will dote over how awesome Mandela was in expressing their sympathies over his passing, but there is no talk of how we sided against him.

[1] For example, Mother Theresa explicitly withheld pain-killers from the people that she treated because she felt that the pain brought them closer to God. It's unquestionable (to me at least) that treating those people (even with this attitude) was a good thing because they would get no care otherwise. On the other hand, I don't put her up on a pedestal as a perfect human being like others do.

The logic here escapes me. The purpose of the laws he broke was to support the unreasonable and unjust ones from being challenged. Right? The difference between something like apartheid (or the 3rd reich) and something like a dysfunctional democracy (which will have some bad laws) is the centrality of evil in the core of the system of idendity of the state. Clearly, in SA the apartheid regime was central to the concept of the citizens of SA. Similarly, was the situation under the Nazis.

That being said, the country of SA has not integrated gracefully by any means. The crime and apalling violence has led to many of the best and brightest fleeing the country for the UK and other anglophile countries. One of my classmates from Uni had his wife mudered in a most horriffic manner. The sad realizaton is that there are not really any good success stories in sub-saharan africa, in terms of ethical governance, economic prosperity, and the rule of Law. It boggles the mind that the only way to make things work is (apparently) political strongmen and what are in essence forms of exploitative labour arrangements under one guise or another.

Hopefully it will one day be a better place.

For many of the millions oppressed during Apartheid, SA is far, far better now. Don't forget crime was rampant during Apartheid, and police protection was not afforded equally to those of difference races. My family, living in non-white areas, had a total of 9 cars stolen during Apartheid. This doesn't happen anymore. Crime statistics are far more accurate now, and show a decreasing trend since Apartheid, though of course it is still high. This crime remains mainly in township areas of SA - set up during Apartheid.

I'm not sure what you mean by success stories. There are numerous successful companies in SA, especially tech companies in the Cape Town. My family have risen from rags through businesses and professional work, and my father was able to rise to a judge where people are now fairly tried regardless of race. I'd say that is a success in the rule of law. Our government is not perfect (which is?), but it sure has come a long way. Just while growing up in SA, malls have risen, houses built for millions who lived in shacks, universities opened up to reflect the demographics of the population - the country has prospered even during the rescission, and property value and sky rocketed in some areas. I have numerous opportunities in SA, and run a startup there.

I carried out research both at Oxford, in the US, and in South Africa. The researchers I worked with in SA are as highly regarded as their peers in their field abroad (bioinformatics), as highly cited, and are happy in South Africa. I know of people going abroad to do PhD's, then returning to lecture here. I only know 1 other person who has moved to the UK permanently, and this is because they have no family in SA and no higher education.

(1) Lack of Personal Security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_security_industry_in_S...

The private security industry in South Africa is the largest in the world,[2] with nearly 9,000 registered companies and 400,000 registered active private security guards, more than the South African police and army combined

(2) White flight, wealth, brain drain (1990's):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africans_in_the_United_K...

According to the 2001 UK Census, 140,201 South African born people were calling the UK, although most recent estimates put the population (including those of South African descent) at over half a million. Unlike South Africa itself...The 2001 census showed that 90% of South Africans in the UK are White

(3) Objective measures of Violent Crime:

UNODC murder rates most recent year

South Africa 31.8 / 15,940

UK 1.2 / 722

But to the broader point also for context:

Subregion Rate Count Region

    Southern Africa 30.5 17,484 Africa

    Central America 28.5 44,997 Americas

    Eastern Africa 21.9 69,344 Africa

    Middle Africa 20.8 25,330 Africa

    South America 20 79,039 Americas

    Northern Africa 5.9 12,276 Africa

    Northern America 3.9 13,558 Americas

    Western Europe 1 1,852 Europe

    Australasia 1 268 Oceania

SA is basically an ~order of magnitude more violent that north america or western europe base on these data. Furthermore, the variation withing the African data from the sub-saharan regions to the north african ones is quite discernable.

Yes, there has been a (white) exodus in the late 90s, but it looks like the correction might have been a one-off.

The UK census is one. For each 100k white people in london that is 1% of the white population of SA. So, ~500k is ~5% of the white SA population of ~10 million. Given the dis-proportionate wealth and education (as you illustrate in your earlier posts) of the white SA population, I would call this number "material" if not "mass exodus", because the social (and networking) impact is likely dis-proportionate to the headcount alone. For these reasons, it seems presumptive to keep denying this has ever occurred. But YMMV.

In South Africa there is simply no mention of an exodus today. This was before my time.

I have white friends from college who were from South Africa, and returned there (Cape Town). They are glad Apartheid is gone, but are unhappy that they have had to watch senior politicians in the ANC sing "Kill the Boers" at rallies in 2013. They also complain of the effects of the BEE. As with other affirmative action programs, it has the effect of fueling racism and resentment while simultaneously (on the positive side) correcting past inequities. Also tying in with other affirmative action weaknesses, it disproportionately benefits the most advantaged members of the favored group(s) while leaving behind the least advantaged from both the favored group and being punishingly unfair to the poor members of the non-favored group. (an Afrikaner boy from a poor home will hurt a company's BEE scorecard, while a black boy whose father is a lawyer will help it)

I would like to see some evidence for a mass exodus from South Africa, specifically would be interested to see if large amounts of money have been taken out of the country to fuel this. I don't think any data exists for this. I was pointing out that what was said was anecdotal, and am obviously aware that what I said is too. The issue is that this complaint about SA is simply not a realistic reflection of what is happening in the country.

BEE is necessary in SA. The extent of racial inequality even today is exceedingly obvious to anyone who lives in the country. It definitely isn't perfect, but any census data will still reflect that levels of unemployment among Black South Africans is higher than those of White South Africans (don't have time to look for the source now, but I read a paper on this). I don't see how there is an easy fix for Apartheid, and this is fine. I'm sure if we went and counted the assets of race groups we would find that White South Africans still have a much larger share, and a large majority of white people are employed in family businesses/practices established during Apartheid. Growing up in SA, this is just blatantly obvious to me. The job situation in SA is such that if you are qualified with a technical degree, you shouldn't have a problem getting a job regardless of race.

BEE, like any other race-based affirmative action program, is obtuse and unjust. The much more just (and effective) tool for achieving the outcome desired by race-based affirmative action is income-based affirmative action, where income is derived from the person's familial income while growing up. This would effectively cover every person of color in SA anyway, but wouldn't persist for those raised without disadvantages in the new post-apartheid gov't. (in other words its a sliding scale)

Here in the US, race-based affirmative action punishes Asians more than any others. Studies show that they effectively have 50 points plus removed from their SAT scores for college admissions. (There is no allowance made for the fact that they may speak English as a second language and have grown up a laborer's child in a poor urban neighborhood)

On the other hand, a black American whose parents are professionals making 6 figures will be treated as if he has the disadvantages of an inner city child or a boy raised by sharecroppers. The net effect is 200 + points added to SAT score (for a male, the effect is dampened for a female). Make it based on income, and the inner-city child gets the advantage he/she needs, and doesn't have his/her spot taken by the child of professionals who went to private schools.

FYI: I witnessed this scenario first hand in high school. A classmate whose father forced him to work on their fishing boat (his family was dirt poor, and his illiterate father cared nothing for education) had higher SAT scores and grades than our mutual friend (mother a lawyer, father an accountant). Fisherman's son was refused admission to the same schools that professional's son was accepted into. Fisherman came from a poor white family AND he suffered from bouts of severe rheumatoid arthritis. The son of professionals from a privileged background got a welcome mat rolled out for him. If this was an income based system it wouldn't have happened that way.

You're talking about getting into universities, the gap between black and white primary and high school education is massive, just to get the basic requirements for university entrance is a struggle if you come from a rural town and do not speak first language English.

Do not compare the US and South Africa. There is no comparison. BEE may be unjust (I don't think it is), but the scale of inequality in South Africa is overwhelming. Remember that over 85% of the population is non-white. I'm not sure how exactly what you say applies in a SA context, but income-based affirmative action sounds no different from race-based affirmative action in SA. I can put forward more relevant scenarios than the one you mention, I know numerous white people, both from poor and rich backgrounds, who have successfully gotten jobs. They are qualified. The same applies to black people. The unemployed people I know are simply not qualified, regardless of their race.

After all, the apartheid state was more than happy to bulldoze thousands of people's homes and not pay restitution; it was more than happy to shoot hundreds or thousands of peaceful protestors and not prosecute anyone for it; it was more than happy to take political prisoners, break their limbs, and throw them out of airplanes a hundred miles from the coast; it was more than happy to plant biological bombs of yellow fever and cholera in refugee camps to lower the number of undesirables.

If a law is observed more in the breach than in the general, is it really a law?

What? 'Coloured' people also refers to a very specific subset of South Africans It doesn't mean what you think it does here.

"Coloured" refers to (and is used self-descriptively by) a subset of people of mixed race of generally one or more of usually British and Dutch ancestry on the "White" side, and generally one or more of various Bantu groups (mostly Xhosa, Zulu, some Ndebele, &c.) or Khoisan ancestry, and sometimes also of Malaysian or other South-East Asian ancestry (from ex-Dutch colonies).

I am one.

There is not much more to say on this topic with two opposing viewpoints :)

All of the posts here decrying the violence of the ANC are ignorant at best. The violence of the ANC was nothing next to the violence of apartheid. The violence of the ANC was far more selective than the violence of apartheid, which was indiscriminate.

A false analogy, since the US was in a position of overwhelming strategic superiority when it dropped A=bombs on Japan. It could easily have set up a naval blockade and waited the Japanese out, or continued it's highly effective conventional bombing campaign, or demonstrated the devastating power of the A-bomb in a thinly populated area - by dropping it on Mt. Fuji, for example, which would certainly have garnered a similar level of attention within Japan.

Only that use was totally unjustified, as Japan was surrendering anyway, a military defeat was already 100% feasible, and the bomb was used needlessy to send a message to the USSR.

"We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence."

Civil disobedience was outlawed and then the government used violence against peaceful demonstrators. Only after that did they fight fire with fire, and history tells us it's possible that that may be the only language that governments understand.

I don't agree the end justifies the means, maybe you do, it's far too easy to get into a debate on morality in these topics. :)

Calling the ANC "terrorist" turns the term on its head. "Terrorism" is when a minority group uses violence to achieve goals it cannot achieve politically. When the majority uses violence to safeguard its own well-being, that's not terrorism. That's exercising an ability possessed by people in the state of nature, one not superseded by any legitimate law or social contract. In the terminology of American criminal law, the violence is not only justified (where a crime is deemed to have been committed but the actions mitigated by a compelling justification), but excused (where no crime is deemed to have been committed at all).

This path of argument seems unable to acknowledge that there are times where "the law" is so unjust that you are left with no non-violent actions whatsoever. I think it's fine if you believe this, but you should be able to clearly say that you believe in nonviolence in all situations and that any deviation from that path is immoral.

The laws Mandela broke were not the same ones he thought were unjust, at least, it seems he broke a superset of the laws he thought were unjust. He did this as a means to an end.

I'd like to say I believe in non-violence, but it's one thing to say it, it's another thing not to punch you after you've just pushed my wife.

The problem with this statement is that he did not physically harm others, or instruct others to do so.

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.

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

The entire speech is worth reading.

To the extent that "terrorist" has any meaning, it is when a less powerful actor attempts to advance an agenda through creating an unmanageable situation for a more powerful institution by causing an increased sense of risk within individuals who are part of the support structure of that institution, thereby making it too expensive for the institution to continue preventing that agenda from being advanced.

Where conventional war wins by killing enough people on the other side that they can't stop you from doing what you want, instead terrorism makes people so expensive (in lost government support from a targeted public, increased salaries and heightened security, and/or lost inflows of money from targeted clients and customers) that allowing the terrorist agenda to advance turns out to be cheaper for the institution being attacked than continuing to fight.

That's what the ANC did.

I believe that terrorism is defined by the desire to cause mass fear in the general populace by intentionally targeting innocent people, to send across some political message in whichever guise. 9/11 was a terrorist attack.

The Spear of the Nation targeted infrastructure of the Apartheid regime, and the policies of equality upheld by the ANC and Nelson Mandela were widely supported by both white and non-white people in South Africa. I do not think these actions were aimed at provoking mass fear or lobbying an ideal not commonly accepted in South Africa.

This period is often referred to as a revolution, and successful revolutionaries are not historically known as 'terrorists'. In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism. They fought against an act of war initiated by the British, the same way that the ANC fought against acts of violence by the ruling regime, except the ANC were severely under resourced.

Again, the spear of the nation may have done this. This doesn't make Nelson Mandela a terrorist. If he armed a bomb, killed someone, held someone hostage for international attention, I would be far more inclined to accept your definition, as with others.

Given that even the Iron Lady apologised for calling Mandela a terrorist, I'd say the commonly accepted belief is that he is and was not a terrorist.

Then it's going to be very difficult to make an argument that Mandela was not a terrorist.

>In the Anglo-Boer war a similar tactic was employed by the Boers to great effect, but I have never heard of anyone referring to their actions during this war as acts of terrorism.

The first hit I get for "Boer terrorism" is: http://www.angloboerwar.com/books/78-stevens-the-complete-hi...

( https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=Boer+terrorism )

Edit:

Sorry about going on about this, but I think that saying people are not terrorists because we agree with them is closely related to saying that people are terrorists because we don't agree with them. If "terrorism" has a meaning, the question of whether Mandela was a terrorist should be answered based on that meaning. If what we really mean to say is that we think Mandela was a great man who improved the lives of millions, we can just say that instead of arguing or insulting each other over semantics.

Well, except that the term "Terror" as a political act and "Terrorists" for those who practiced it -- well, except in French, not English -- was coined to refer to a particular set of successful (to that point) revolutionaries and their actions (and embraced by them.)

> having cognitive dissonance

I know what most people think is not always right, but read yourself, and try to add water to your wine a little.

The context of apartheid was really bleak. Colonization by whites on african land can only generate relevant tensions from black people toward whites. Most people are black in SA and in all africa around it. You can't have a ruling minority which is not like and expect nice things. Nelson Mandela was much more peaceful (and smart) than most others.

> Mandela was a terrorist.

First, people use terrorism when they're losing a war, not an political argument. Secondly, activists have been called terrorists because the cause they defend have been discredited after other activists used violence for the same cause. It's the media and newspaper inflating images which doesn't reflect the thought of the majority.

You can't mix and match opinions and definitions used by the media to discredit Mandela, and at the same time forget how the situation was in SA, and on top of it, talk about cognitive dissonance. If most view it as a hero, maybe he just it. Nobody sees Ben Laden as a hero. Bush actually invited Mandela and apologized after he was considered a terrorist.

Conclusion: everyone sees terrorists everywhere.

The history of South Africa is unique, and you will learn something. These events are strongly connected to the discovery of gold and diamonds. Perhaps you've heard of the Rhodes scholarship? Cecil John Rhodes was a key player in these trades, and the Rhodes scholarship has a special status in SA.

Examples of previously white only areas : http://goo.gl/maps/JMQ07, http://goo.gl/maps/rz0bf

Examples of black only areas: http://tinyurl.com/pxpbwtq, http://tinyurl.com/kvxzm4l

The apartheid regime might have justified extreme measures that killed civilians, but his hands are not as clean as you would imagine from the hagiography.

We don't glorify Gerry Adams in this way and give him Nobel prizes, although he did contribute a lot to the peace process in Ireland.

The "peace process" basically consisted of SF/IRA giving up and accepting the political arrangement which they had been violently opposing for decades, in exchange for goodies for themselves. As such it's a bit much to laud Adams for his role in it, beyond noting his success in persuading his fellow desperadoes to accept the goodies instead of continuing their deeply beloved war. (Though it turns out his success at this was pretty partial too.) Nonetheless if you don't think Adams has been glorified you're quite mistaken. As soon as the "peace process" began Adams (and Martin McGuinness, the Tweedledum to his Tweedledee) were the beneficiaries of an almost full-spectrum political and media bulldozing campaign in the Republic of Ireland, the UK and worldwide in support of the peace process and its heroes and against any hard questions. You wouldn't believe some of the soft-focused fawning and cooing Adams has received from mainstream sources, if you somehow haven't seen it yourself already.

So he didn't turn out to be a meek cow...that is your complaint?

While Ghandi lived in South Africa, he wrote racist slander towards black (African) people, referring to them as 'kaffirs' (the N word equivalent in SA). Here's a quote:

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

Ghandi too was not perfect, and also experienced Apartheid (most notably when he was kicked off a train in Pietermaritzburg), and demonstrated against it in SA. Though I do not think he believed in equality for Indians with Blacks.

He writes about the experience in Pietermaritzburg and how it took this experience to realize that all men are brothers and deserving of equality. This is not to say the guy was a saint, but to mention that I believe he came around.

You get two types of people here, one group is liberal and support alomost anything against racism, women abuse, welfare reform, you name it, if it promotes freedom they are for it.These are called the Democrats. On the other side of it the people who love racism but deny it exists, they donated to george zimmerman, they hold onto their guns at all cost, believe all minorites are on welfare etc. These are the Republicans. A lot of people who are posting negative things come from this group and they are no different than Apartheid type whites, they even be worst, but this style of thinking has been passed down from their parents and they will pass it down to their kids, thats life. Don't let their lack of evolution sway your understanding of what Mandela stood for as most of them have not taken the time to educate themselves, but just read snippets and focus on something slighlty negative.

If Mandela had ceated a civil war, this country would not have been blessed with "Elon Musk", "Emmanue Dherman" and people Like "Roelof Botha" would not be living the cozy VC life even though his family were high ranking members in the apartheid government.

Now imagine that you are on the opposite side of this person. How do you feel? Would you even remotely consider switching to his side, when his argument for doing so starts with the presumption that people on your side cannot possibly have any good intentions at all, even though you know that you yourself do?

Exactly.

Terrorism is the response of the weak to the strong; if the strong is wrong and unjustly oppressing the weak, then terrorism is justified and good.

It could be argued that terrorism saves lives: it kills less people to obtain a big outcome, than a regular war.

Terrorism is war hacking.

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

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?

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

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...

"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.

I've never made a statement about what is "best for them". That is up to them, or at least it should be. They currently have no opportunity to decide what is best for themselves, and apparently you think this is a great deal, and we shouldn't complain about anyone living under authoritarian regimes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

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.

People are not totally good or totally evil.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

To piss off SA, the street their embassy was on was renamed while he was still being held.

There's more the story: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22976781

The UK embassy responded by moving their main entrance to a side door on a different street so they wouldn't be forced to put Bobby Sands on their letterhead, official documents, etc.

Title really should be: "The Day Mandela Was Arrested, With A Little Help From A Hired Private Security Contractor Who Happened To Have Worked For The CIA In The Past"

Mandela was arrested in the 1962, and Shirley (the person in question) only retired from the agency a decade later, in 1973.

http://www.salon.com/1996/11/14/news_577/

I believe the confusion comes from when the training manuals for the South African security/intelligence forces were being developed by him, which came later, after his ostensible retirement.

That's one part of capitalism I hate, paying fat checks, and knowing it will never backfire to you. When you're a government agency, when you hire somebody, there's espionage/politics involved, don't pretend the CIA is pinky pony. It's strategic moves from start to end.

I've seen worse headlines.

While it is easy to sit back and judge the past we have to realize that some actions were seen as prudent at the time. The nation Mandela came up in is far different from what it is today but so is the world. This by no means excuses actions of the past, but at the time who would have ever figured the transformation that took place in him at the time.

"At the time, it made sense to help racists (who happened to be our allies) imprison and possibly hang a black agitator. We now know it was wrong, but back then who knew?" Um, ok. So when is it right to denounce those who helped racist regimes?

It's extremely tiresome to watch actions being justified because the "big bad" communists were out there. And what is this about an existential struggle?

The only real struggle between the two nations was who would dominate the rest of the world. I don't consider this existential. China is doing just fine without wanting to take over the rest of the world.

It's great revisionist history going on right now with Nelson Mandela's death. If you don't know the real history, you would think the States was right there beside Mandela fighting for freedom.

The US are great inside its border, but outside, until everybody adopted total liberal capitalism (which surprisingly, fit the "I hire you, obey me" manner, and is very effective at buying assets), it will be shitting in every country it can. And that's not wise nor smart.

That's very aggressive, and that's the main reason people are now scared of flying. More and more bad rep, yet american citizens will argue europeans are faggots, that the US is on top or whatever. I don't want to judge too much, but there is a different between a respected leader and a bully.

Not by black people.

http://www.ourmadiba.com/reflect.html

http://www.702.co.za/index_site.asp

Big disgrace if the CIA actively sponsored this regime, but the allegations in the article are just from one source not directly related to the affairs. All the "Who knows" and "My guess" doesn't make the case any stronger.

The US was the apartheid regime's next-to-last overt ally (Israel was the last -- and proliferated nuclear weapons technology to South Africa) -- US overt support ending only late in the Reagan Administration under intense public and Congressional pressure -- and its not really the worst regime the US backed as a bulwark against Communism.

Regardless of whether the CIA was involved in supplying information for Mandela's arrest, there is no question that at the time -- and for decades after -- the US government was -- overtly, not merely potentially covertly -- backing the South Africa apartheid regime.

The USA was very stringent in adhering to the progressively tighter UN arms embargoes and once the supplies from France ceased this caused SA to look towards Israel, Taiwan and Argentina for military equipment ( the latter two mainly as covert import channels, Israel as a partner ).

Occasional US arms did appear in SADF service but only as grey imports.

SA intel and SADF held a pretty dim view of CIA capabilities ( particularly in Angola ) and from what I know in public sources didn't deal much with them. Though they did supply captured Warpac equipment, once they had examined it in conjunction with the Israelis.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/southafrica.html

http://www.thetruthaboutsouthafrica.com/p/white-genocide-in-...

But individual crimes, even crimes partially or wholly racially motivated, do not make for a race war or genocide.

I've done a lot of reading on this topic myself. I would love to post some sources but I don't have my books with me at the moment. But for what it's worth (which is not much, admittedly) - let me add my endorsement as a fellow HNer that what the author talks about is plausible, and there is plenty of evidence if you care to go looking for it. I believe this is a well-accepted theory by many other South Africans, rather than a fringe conspiracy. But yes - unfortunate that the author doesn't do more to back up the claims in a verifiable way.

edit: The cover is different, but I'm pretty sure this is the book I read that did the most to back up these events: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-B-O-S-S-Africas-Secret-Police/d.... The details, as I remember them, have always been very consistently reported by the various "sources".

Some other civilization (let's say the Arabs) comes to America and puts us in a system analogous to apartheid, where the groups are whites on bottom and arabs on top.

In that hypothetical, would your opinions be different?

TBH, while he did break the law, I think his course of action against the state was justified. That's obviously not an excuse that will fly in court, but saying "he deserved to go to jail" is a bit disingenuous given the context.

Mandela pleaded guilty to the charges against him (sabotage of various state and military instruments). The state was looking for evidence of him having a hand in killing/hurting civilians because they wanted to hang him. They couldn't find any, so they settled on life imprisonment.

I am not too sure how to feel about an institution of the apartheids regime being the judge to this. Right and wrong get mixed up in my head.

For the fact that he and others resisted this regime, they deserve the praise they are getting. Sure some laws have been broken, but who made and interpreted these laws? That is not why I was saying he deserved punishment. It is innocent victims that make the difference. I was definitely not clear on that.

Btw I just did some reading up on the ANC bombings and it turns out I might be all wrong and just made an ass out of myself.

FYI, he was not connected to that bombing. He was in prison at the time and only heard about it through the news and visitors. Some websites claim that he stated in his autobiography that he personally approved of the bombings. This is obviously false. His autobiography is available on the net for everyone to read.

"Deserve" has little to do with going to jail. Going to jail is a legal matter. A moral man committing a moral act that happens to break an immoral law will go to jail according to that law, but does he "deserve" it?

It's important to note the date of this speech at his trial, April 20 1964, _before_ the passing of the US civil rights act (July 2 the same year); so at this time parts of the US had apartheit-like conditions.

All citizens had to carry a card identifying their race. (Population Registration Act)

It was specifically legally allowed to segregate public facilities (parks, hospitals, transportation, etc.). In addition, facilities were specifically allowed to be unequal for different races or even non-existent. (Reservation of Separate Amenities Act)

Property was legally divided by race and you could only live in areas alloted to your race. (Group Areas Act)

Federal law controlled which jobs you were allowed to hold based on your race. High skill jobs were reserved for whites and blacks were prohibited from holding them. (Mines and Works Act, Native Building Workers Act)

Blacks were legally prohibited from striking or forming unions. Whites had no such restriction. (Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act, Industrial Conciliation Act)

Schools were legally segregated by race, which led (either intentionally or not) to radically inferior schooling for blacks. In the 70s, per capita spending on black education was one-tenth of the spending on white. (Bantu Education Act, Extension of University Education Act et. al.)

It was a federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison to engage in inter-racial sex involving a white person. Inter-racial marriage was likewise outlawed. (Immorality Act, Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act)

And this is just the beginning. There were dozens of other pieces of legislation that specifically encoded race-based selection into federal law. It's astonishing how horrendous South Africa was in a time where most other developed countries were what we think of as "modern".