All good points to be sure. I wasn’t saying that he necessarily could have visited wanton genocide on whites, but his rhetoric could have been more divisive and could have raised tensions inevitably leading to more bloodshed.
I am no fan of the current South African government and I am no fan of Mandela either. Apartheid and white control of the country was going to end. The numbers were not there nor was there the will to continue with that system. Partition of that country may have been a better solution or, perhaps, a more gradual transition to majority rule/power sharing should have been implemented.
There are numerous outrages being committed against the white population. Also, there is a large increase in black on black crime. I don’t see the situation getting better very soon. Perhaps, the new overlords of Africa, the Chinese, will impose some order. I am not optimistic about the long-term prospects of the Boers and other European descendents in S.A. Hopefully, I am wrong about that.
It was interesting that he would say one thing in his speeches in English, when the world was watching, and another thing when he was speaking to “his” people. The rhetoric differed substantially, with much more of a revolutionary or moderate bent depending on the audience. It was what was expected of him though, and he would not have been able to govern had he approached it any different.
“Partition of that country may have been a better solution or, perhaps, a more gradual transition to majority rule/power sharing should have been implemented.”
Very astute observations, and not too different from what De Klerk promised the whites. Unfortunately he sold out.