Was Nelson Mandela a Terrorist?

During his trial Madiba gave his famous "I am prepared to die," speech. In that speech he said

quote:

---

At the beginning of June 1961, after a long and anxious assessment of the South African situation, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force.

​

This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle, and to form Umkhonto we Sizwe. We did so not because we desired such a course, but solely because the government had left us with no other choice. In the Manifesto of Umkhonto published on 16 December 1961, which is exhibit AD, we said:

'The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices — submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.'

---

sourceLike with Menachem Begin and Irgun before him was Umkhonto we Sizwe a liberation movement or a terrorist organization? This can only be answered by each of us individually.For that place, at that time, in my opinion, Mandela's reasoning was compelling. As the world has seen too many times, sometimes freedom and liberty can only be fed on blood.Edited by AZPaul3, : historical reference oops

Nope.

I do not have a source ready but as I recall negotiating with De Klerk for a peacefull transfer was the preferable option to a lengthy civil war. De Klerk, of course, negotiated clemency and forgiveness to which Mandela, in keeping with his philosophy and desire for a peaceful transfer, agreed.I can understand, and share, your feelings for justice, but in this case the extraction of justice was sacrificed to the greater goal of a transfer of power without a protracted civil war.As for the children? I think it is better to teach them that, not just sometimes but often, the universe is not fair and reality requires compromise.

OK. That is you. What about the thousands that got to live with some freedom and some dignity because they didn't have to die in a civil war? What about the thousands that actually got born and now live in a free society because a would-be parent was not killed in the civil war? I would think these folks have quite a different response. Local community standards where an individual's freedom is affected are quite different from nation-state standards where thousands of people's very lives hang in jeopardy. Would you really rather see your family, friends, neighbors and yourself made dead just to get even with De Klerk?Also, there is a major difference between being judicial and being vindictive. I'm thinking maybe you are overstepping that line.

The Nazi's were not engaged in willingly negotiating themselves out of power instituting a peaceful transfer to a democratic government.The Afrikaner's were. Why should Mendella wish more bloody debilitating war for his nation when a transfer of power was right there on the table without all the suffering?Is revenge so important that he should have refused his victory when it was already in hand?Frankly, yenmor, those who cry out for more killing and more blood when peace could so easily be achieved are the evil ones.

You may well be right. Sociopathic also comes to mind.But I think I'll give Yenmor the benefit of the doubt and consider him to be a young man who has never been witness, nor given much thought, to the horrors of war. I think he may have that romantic view of war as something noble when pursued for an idealistic cause instead of as a dispicable horror to be avoided whenever possible.Having been there I could not wish the experience of war on anyone for any reason. So I will wish for Yenmor to build empathy of the experience through study, discussion and thought. Lord knows there are plenty of fellow young people for him to talk with who have those horrors forever burned into their souls.

I don't understand, Pressie. All those numbers:

quote:

---

The manuscript mentions, among its statistics:
- 80,000 detentions without trial for periods of up to three years, including the detention of about 10,000 women and at least 15000 children under the age of 18;
- 73 deaths in detention recorded by the HRC as deaths while in the hands of the security police;
- 37 names of those who died while in custody of the uniformed police under politically-related circumstances;
- 3000 people served banning or restriction orders in terms of security legislation;
- 15000 people charged under security legislation since 1950 in political trials, and the 49 names of those who paid the ultimate price of political execution;
- 7000 political deaths between 1948 and 1989 and 46 massacres in that period, as well as 14 000 lives lost and 22000 injuries in the period 1990 to the elections in 1994; and
- abductions (30), disappearances (38) and internal assassinations (150).
Hit squad and vigilante group activities in covert repression are also documented.

---

Were at the hands of the state. Nothing in there about ANC.

I'm getting quite the opposite impression.From the report section on the State's new strategy and their attempts to destabilize the rebellion in the period July 1990 to June 1991. It covers the actions of the official security forces, the death squads and this ...

quote:

---

Vigilantism in the South African context is a phenomenon born directly out of the creation of apartheid-motivated structures of government and administration. The structures concerned are the homelands (both the 'independent' and 'self-governing' varieties) and the black urban councils. Both structures are strongly rejected by the vast majority of the black population and strong pressures have built up for their dismantling. In response to these pressures, private 'armies' of-vigilantes were developed to support and defend these unpopular structures and came to receive the tacit and then the active encouragement of the state as an element which fitted in well with their 'total strategy' of the Emergency years. It was an element that helped to promote the image of 'black-on-black violence' at no political cost to the government.

​

.
.
.

​

Summary of the toll

​

The toll on the life of township communities over the 12-month period has been devastating. Over 3000 lives have been lost; nearly 7000 injuries have been recorded, but the real figure is certainly in excess of 10 000; no one can say how many are maimed for life; and over 8 000 have been arrested. In addition, tens of thousands have lost their homes and have become internal refugees.

---

sourceThat is considerably more than the 1,000 you gave. And this was just the one year cited in this one section of the report. Without a doubt. But the report indicates that just for the one year after Mandela’s release the lion's share of the killing was still from the various organs, official and covert, of the state and greatly exceeded the figure you have given.I'm not sure it matters much, to be truthful. War is death no matter who does what when or how much.When the new government took control under Mandela their first step was to do what was necessary to stem the violence, stop reprisal killings on both sides and, with the TRC as one means, heal the society as quickly as possible. With the drumbeat of "non-violence" coming constantly from the Mandela government the violence subsided and the organs of a new democratic state were put into place.To look at South Africa today clearly he succeeded. It could have been a whole lot different (see Zimbabwe, Congo, Ivory Coast).Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity? maybe.