I see your point has extended meanings but how come betterment for human kind develop when he already has lost the freedom for human kind . I suppose the freedom for man kind is one of very step for betterment for human kind , this is how I see it , we must consider this situation to a particular period , where he raised a world that whole Africa was robbed by invaders , and he was one of person who realised the robbery and determined to do some thing , there are may be plenty of them about the robbery but not many understood how should with robberies and rescue their people from the plights they faced ., therefore I believe his commitment toward African continent was enormous and it is a betterment for the human kind , he geared up people and revolted against the invaders to save their lands , if it isn’t toward human kind whom it for ?

Cyberviews, none of that is disputed. Like you, I have a great respect for the man. He was a visionary politician like Lincoln. I also don’t think he was a terrorist, whatever the CIA thought. They didn’t use terror as a military tactic. They didn’t deliberately attack civilians. But you cannot say patriotism had nothing to do with his politics. He was clearly a nationalist, and nationalism is patriotism’s political expression. What I think is, even if you really aren’t much of a patriot, you’d still need to use those kinds of tribal feelings of others to get them to physically attack something or someone at a large scale. Something like “freedom for human kind” would not work. These guys weren’t fighting for the betterment of human kind, although they might have done that too. They wanted their country back.

Posted on behalf of cyberviews:

“Appreciate the comment Sharanga, but I do not share your views. Mandela was an astute and skillful political leader. The years of incarceration also allowed him to read political situations more objectively and strategically, and in the face of the most provoking apartheid excesses, he was able to contain the black suprecmacist tendencies (even in the wake of the murder of the great and legendary black consciousness leader, Steve Biko), which may have derailed the liberation struggle. The real test came when Chris Hani was assassinated, and it was his skillful handling of that situation that gave him the moral upper hand in the subsequent negotiations. While he did not shy away from taking up arms as a last resort, he did not get carried away with armed violence and used it in a very strategic and tactical way. He did not approve of the antics of Winnie Mandela’s United Football Club and their terror tactics. He knew he needed the backing of the powerful countries of the world who did not want the status quo changed, hence he played his cards carefully and pragmatically.”