I don't think this is the place for this debate, but I cannot let that go. I am sure that sounds logical, given the way history is re-written by our media and universities, but let me try to explain what was really going on back then, without the flaming.
In any world war with the USSR, the southern Africa area was highly strategic. It is one of the handful of waterways along with the GIUK corridor, Dardanelles, etc. that would determine whether the West would keep open shipping lanes and win the war or the Comms would shut down shipping and possibly win. Same as WW2 -- sea keeping versus sea denial. The anti apartheid movements in southern Africa plainly had Communist members and elements an it was an unacceptable risk for the West to support those movements because they more than likely would turn out to be anti West. If there was a pro-USSR installed regime in South Africa, the West was screwed in the event of war.
You say Ho loved the US. All those movement leaders said the same thing to try to keep the US from intervening. The US learned its first lesson along these lines with Castro, who said he was a freedom fighter and future ally of the US.
It should be obvious by now that even today these tin pot movement leaders in the Arab world who claim to support democracy are full of crap. It has become painfully obvious that Western style Democrats exist in English speaking and other Romanized countries but not in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. All we can do there is eliminate or contain threats. I suggest you reconsider the left wing propaganda you were fed growing up.
