3 ms·
I think it is a little more complicated than "he was peaceful" or "he was non-peaceful". Some great listening on the subject: http://mandelahistory.com/ http:
by crisnoble 13y ago
I think it is a little more complicated than "he was peaceful" or "he was non-peaceful".
Some great listening on the subject:
http://mandelahistory.com/ http://mandelahistory.com/
-a 5-part radio series documenting the struggle against apartheid through rare sound recordings, the voice of Nelson Mandela himself, as well as those who fought with him, and against him.
- mcv 13y ago> I think it is a little more complicated than "he was peaceful" or "he was non-peaceful". He used violence when violence was needed, he used peace when peace is needed. I'd like to be as pacifist as I can possibly be, but there simply are situations where violence is necessary. And severe oppression without non-violent means to end the oppression, is one of them. Some things need to be fought.
- cook1929 13y agoYou're saying that it's fine to target your bombings at children and women if you're fighting to end something like apartheid? Wow.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- frankzinger 13y agoSo what, exactly, is your point? Are you saying that what the Apartheid government did was legal and legitimate? Obviously bombing civilians is wrong, nobody disputes that. But the Apartheid government killed and tortured many innocent people. Both sides did bad things. None of this is news. Why are you pointing this out? Edit: the thing that makes Mandela special is that, once he became the government, it would have been just as "legitimate" for him to have behaved as the Apartheid government had, but he effected peace instead.