8 ms·

Can you please elaborate on this? The ANC (Mandela's political party) including Mandela himself certainly committed a wide range of violent acts in response to

by casca 13y ago

Can you please elaborate on this? The ANC (Mandela's political party) including Mandela himself certainly committed a wide range of violent acts in response to a vast display of vile force from the ruling South African government. However the respect that Mandela receives is for his actions after he was released from prison. After winning political power democratically, he was in a strong position to take retribution on those that had imprisoned him and caused such misery and hardship to his people. But he didn't. He tried to bridge the huge divide. At the time, and I speak as someone who was living through it, there was a real fear that the country would erupt into a civil war. There was so much hate on both sides. It is widely believed by people from all South African political views that Mandela was responsible for reconciling the opposing sides and beginning a path of building a new country. Was he perfect? Of course not. But he achieved what so many deemed impossible in a noble manner and this is extremely rare in political leaders anywhere in the world.

moultano 13y ago
What I found interesting from reading his autobiography is that he didn't consider non-violence to be an end in itself. Rather he viewed it as one tool among many. Edit: found the citation. http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=long%20walk%20to%20freedom%20non%20violence&pg=PT80#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=l... >Others said that we should approach this issue not from the point of view of principles but of tactics, and that we should employ the method demanded by the conditions. If a particular method or tactic enabled us to defeat the enemy, then it should be used. In this case, the state was far more powerful than we, and any attempts at violence by us would be devastatingly crushed. This made nonviolence a practical necessity rather than an option. This was my view, and I saw nonviolence in the Gandhian model not as an inviolable principle but as a tactic to be used as the situation demanded. The principle was not so important that the strategy should be used even when it was self- defeating, as Gandhi himself believed. I called for nonviolent protest for as long as it was effective. This view prevailed, despite Manilal Gandhi's strong objections.
- treenyc 13y ago
  Effective exercise of leadership is more like a dance than doing steps. Rather than doing one step correctly, try to dance to music. There is no ONE correct solution for every situation. Sometime peaceful non-violence is required, sometimes using high tech solution is appropriate to make things more productive, and sometime military force is required to defend one self. Rather than standing behind one principle, try addressing the concerns of relevant parties. Leadership is granted by those people who lead you and those whom you lead.
- read 13y ago
  "Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela
  - djKianoosh 13y ago
    "Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies." - Nelson Mandela
mcantelon 13y ago
Mandela founded the MK, a terrorist organization that bombed both military and civilian targets. Mandela: "...without violence ... no way ... to succeed in .. struggle against ... white supremacy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_for_formation_of_the_MK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_fo... He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence. As with Arafat, I think he reached a point where violence as a tactic wasn't possible or useful.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sanderjd 13y ago
  It seems to me that both casca and mathieuh are correct - he was both a symbol of non-peaceful resistance, and a creator of peace amidst a push for war. Furthermore, his post-apartheid actions seem the more historically important, as they were the more novel and their relative success the more surprising.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- eaurouge 13y ago
  That's cute. A man dedicates his life to freeing his people from their oppressors, including spending 27 years in jail on principle, and upon release (and with overwhelming support) calls for "truth and reconciliation". We're talking about an entire life spent resisting an oppressive and violent regime. Many of us can't even begin to comprehend what that means, or what actions we may choose if in the same situation. Yet here you are with the benefit of hindsight, in relative comfort, analyzing a statement he made decades before his death. If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions.
  - mcantelon 13y ago
    I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach. "If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently." - Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom, p.537) "If the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use peaceful means. It is up to you... not us to renounce violence.” p.537 Looking at things tactically, it's a question of where your opponent is vulnerable: internally or externally. Pacifism is necessary to create the perception of legitimacy needed to mobilize external political support.

by casca 13y ago

moultano 13y ago

What I found interesting from reading his autobiography is that he didn't consider non-violence to be an end in itself. Rather he viewed it as one tool among many. Edit: found the citation. http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=long%20walk%20to%20freedom%20non%20violence&pg=PT80#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=RHwLqVrnXgIC&lpg=PT189&dq=l... >Others said that we should approach this issue not from the point of view of principles but of tactics, and that we should employ the method demanded by the conditions. If a particular method or tactic enabled us to defeat the enemy, then it should be used. In this case, the state was far more powerful than we, and any attempts at violence by us would be devastatingly crushed. This made nonviolence a practical necessity rather than an option. This was my view, and I saw nonviolence in the Gandhian model not as an inviolable principle but as a tactic to be used as the situation demanded. The principle was not so important that the strategy should be used even when it was self- defeating, as Gandhi himself believed. I called for nonviolent protest for as long as it was effective. This view prevailed, despite Manilal Gandhi's strong objections.

treenyc 13y ago
Effective exercise of leadership is more like a dance than doing steps. Rather than doing one step correctly, try to dance to music. There is no ONE correct solution for every situation. Sometime peaceful non-violence is required, sometimes using high tech solution is appropriate to make things more productive, and sometime military force is required to defend one self. Rather than standing behind one principle, try addressing the concerns of relevant parties. Leadership is granted by those people who lead you and those whom you lead.
read 13y ago
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." - Nelson Mandela
- djKianoosh 13y ago
  "Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies." - Nelson Mandela

mcantelon 13y ago

Mandela founded the MK, a terrorist organization that bombed both military and civilian targets. Mandela: "...without violence ... no way ... to succeed in .. struggle against ... white supremacy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_for_formation_of_the_MK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Motivation_fo... He might have turned into a pacifist, at some point, but he certainly gained political capital, intially, through violence. As with Arafat, I think he reached a point where violence as a tactic wasn't possible or useful.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sanderjd 13y ago
It seems to me that both casca and mathieuh are correct - he was both a symbol of non-peaceful resistance, and a creator of peace amidst a push for war. Furthermore, his post-apartheid actions seem the more historically important, as they were the more novel and their relative success the more surprising.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
eaurouge 13y ago
That's cute. A man dedicates his life to freeing his people from their oppressors, including spending 27 years in jail on principle, and upon release (and with overwhelming support) calls for "truth and reconciliation". We're talking about an entire life spent resisting an oppressive and violent regime. Many of us can't even begin to comprehend what that means, or what actions we may choose if in the same situation. Yet here you are with the benefit of hindsight, in relative comfort, analyzing a statement he made decades before his death. If you're going to judge, the least you can do is judge the man on the totality of his actions.
- mcantelon 13y ago
  I'm more interested in simply highlighting the whole truth rather than making a value judgement. The truth is that Mandela was a pragmatist in regards to tactics. When bombing fast food restaurants was tactically viable his organization did that. When the situation changed, he advocated an alternative approach. "If the oppressor uses violence, the oppressed have no alternative but to respond violently." - Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom, p.537) "If the state decided to use peaceful methods, the ANC would also use peaceful means. It is up to you... not us to renounce violence.” p.537 Looking at things tactically, it's a question of where your opponent is vulnerable: internally or externally. Pacifism is necessary to create the perception of legitimacy needed to mobilize external political support.