To condone violence in the name of peace is another. If anything, he should of looked down on the fact violence had to be used to defend his rights. He also should have condemned any thought of continuing violence. The word on the streets are white people in South Africa have been experiencing reverse discrimination ever since his takeover. He may spoke out against racism all together, but actions speak louder than your words.
As the above. He preached about peace but showed hate and anger and racism in his violent past. This would be considered hypocritical. Do people seem to care? No. They are too ashamed he had to resort to that behaviour while the world watched...So we let him off. The end.
Democracy is not always obtained through means of peaceful protest. Even Martin Luther King Jr. Was able to nationally take a stance like he did because despite hatred he was given that right. Mandela lived in a country were that right did not exist and to ask for it, demand it, or vote for it was quite literally punishable by death.
Nelson Mandela recently died, leave him alone you frickin punks. Jeezus, why would you go through all of the trouble of trying to frame this man for murder if he only stayed in a prison cell and got a heart attack and died of the common cold. Your morons. Dumb.
Mandela's call for violence in the past was based on black disenfranchisment as well as, critically, the lack of a forum or process to air legitimate grievances. When liberalisation occurred and avenues opened up in 1990 the rationale for violence fell away, and the armed struggle was eventually replaced by the ballot. Going forward violence thus had no justification and the change in Mandela's policy was consistent with the previous policy of principled resistance.
I think that sometimes violence is the only way to get the message across just ask the US government. I think that people tend to twist the truth and mold it into whatever they see fit sometimes and using poor Nelson Mandela is an example that may justify that fact.
The African National Congress based its struggle for African rights solely on negotiation from 1912 to the 1960's. The white government rejected these attempts and the majority of black people who at the tine suffered from a "native education system" were beginning to demanded armed action from the ANC. The ANC resisted initially resisted this but was ultimately forces to act after evictions and riots resulted in civilian casualties. The nature of armed struggle was not against whites but rather against the system of oppressive minority rule. Similar events have occurred throughout history even in the USA where there were revolutionary wars against the british. Mr Mandela spent 27 years in prison, he accepted that sentence and came out with a clear vision of what had to be done to unite the nation. He is a hero of the African people be they black or white, the economic questions are however a matter that should be left to another time as they are extremely complicated and will require comprehensive arguments. I do not believe that the ANC practices a policy of "discrimination".
Mandela was a great man because he knew when to fight and when to talk. Speaking as an American who is more than versed in his history, I am proud of the tradition we have, which is rooted in both violent and non violent history.
Mandela was a true voice of the people and the answer to taking action. Perhaps if we had more of Mandela's spirit here in the United States, both in violence and in peace, we would be worthy of our birthright. I admire Mandela greatly as his legacy reminds us of this.