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.