ultrasnacks In reply to ixnivek [2015-02-02 21:40:30 +0000 UTC]

Ghandi had his personal beliefs which any and all are free to disagree with, but the overall effect of his life most people can agree has manifested to be overwhelmingly positive regardless of what we today see as his ethical shortcomings.

Let's be honest; most of what is claimed about Ghandi's racially intolerant views is indeed valid for a great many outstanding White figures in history, founding fathers, presidents of the US, dictators and Kings and prime ministers and generals and scientists alike. The same can be claimed for many nationalist African rulers that nationalized banks, businesses, and farmland, forcibly expelling Indian and European property holders.

They were all at least in part a product of time and culture, yet the ultimate effect of their lives was overwhelmingly positive.

When we celebrate these men, Ghandi included, although they have died, we celebrate what they've come to symbolize.

Let's not forget, Ghandi helped catalyze peaceful resistance against abusive colonialists. Today, India is one of the few functional secular democracies in Asia whose constitution actively places government in opposition to cultural attitudes promoting discrimination on basis of caste and gender. This is in large part owed to the intentional labors of Ghandi and of course many Indians of his time who chose to adopt Ghandi as the face of their efforts for India's sovereign rights.

Not many people will claim him to be flawless, but he was a beloved father to the Indian nation, and while attitudes and culture may shift over the ebb and flow of history, it is integral to Indian culture to honor the elders and ancestors of one's families that worked to provide for one even if one doesn't see them as deities or if one disagrees with them on any given matter. And Ghandi surely did work to provide for the sovreignity of the family that is India. Of course, there are many other Indian nationalists as Bose and Naoroji whom I think in many ways deserve equal or greater respect.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ixnivek In reply to ultrasnacks [2015-02-03 05:33:31 +0000 UTC]

And I greatly disagree......The hypocrisy of his humanitarianism.  How can you treat badly those who are already in a miserable condition (whether under the caste system or the apartheid regime) but treat docile those who are oppressing you....I choose not to celebrate this man.  People tend to portray him as a demigod of some sort...Yes..He had flaws, like every other person, like every other hero, revolutionary, peaceful leader, etc. and that is not a reason for not honoring them, but if you favor those of the phenotype/group/system/corporation who are oppressing, colonizing, dehumanizing and diminishing the human spirit of your people while at the same time, as an influential figure he/she is doing the same thing against others in similar or worst conditions, then in my book he/she is an hypocrite.

Then if I grow up in an urban area during the Jim Crow laws and I get absorbed into its culture..later in life can I be justified in lynching Blacks?..I mean that was part of my environment/conventional wisdom/system/geopolitical/ ideology/etc..I mean I guess I am justified to hate/steal/dehumanize/kill since I grew up in that system right?  

And true..People also tend to think that Mahatma Gandhi single-handed delivered the independence to the country of India..He had his supporters who were very influential in the process..

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

maaderllin In reply to Saurav-Harsh [2015-02-11 04:59:28 +0000 UTC]

Well he raped his two grand nieces.
I guess he loved them eh???

He was an asshole.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Saurav-Harsh In reply to maaderllin [2015-02-19 12:52:54 +0000 UTC]

looks like u didnt even read my comment... :/ when u cant say something good.. dont even say bad! why not look at the positive side huh :3 ? look at his great work...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

maaderllin In reply to Saurav-Harsh [2015-02-21 09:13:03 +0000 UTC]

Well your comment is stupid so I didn't take it into account. 
The fact is that he is a rapist. And we shouldn't try to occult the fact he was a rapist just because he's a celebrity.

You don't have to say something good to talk about people that are piece of trash.
You wouldn't say something bad about Hitler or Stalin just because you can't say something good?

That's one very flawed way of thinking. Just how old are you?
He was nothing more than a shitty guru like there was many others during this time of India, who happened to be
born in a priviledged family who often cooperated with brittish colonialism. Bloodbath and mass-suicides were is great work.

He said that Hindu people should enlist in brittish navy during the Boer war so that maybe, by helping britain brutaly oppress other people than them, they would get special privileges in the empire. So much for pacifism.
He said that people should surrender to Hitler and Mussolini without violence and let them take what they want.  So much for resistance.
He also said that women who would be being raped should have three options:
1: They fight and win
2: Their purity strikes the agressor with shame
3: They let themselves die before the agressor can rape them if they are not pure enough to just "shine the rapist away".

warriorpublications.files.word…

The fact that gandhi is portrayed as a hero is disgusting. Here. Have some read.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EngulfedInAReverie In reply to LORDTyb [2015-02-01 19:42:55 +0000 UTC]

First of all, he did not want to keep the caste system "intact" as you've called it. He was actually against untouchability and wanted to abolish this hierarchical system. He wanted to uplift the downtrodden lower castes i.e the untouchables who were treated in an inhumane fashion by the three upper castes because according to ancient Brahmanical texts, each caste or varna was born out of a particular part of the creator, the three upper castes were said to have come from the head, chest and thighs of the creator, respectively whereas the lower castes were said to have come from the feet of the creator. Occupations were carried out on the basis of these notions, which is why the lower castes were given menial tasks and were deemed untouchable. Gandhi called the untouchables "harijans" which literally translates to "god's people". He brought them into the mainstream social structure. His arrival, turned the Indian nationalist movement into a rainbow like coalition of people from various castes, religions, social, cultural and economic stratas. Prior to his arrival, the nationalist movement was an elitist phenomenon. So no, he did not preach inequality. He preached equality, nonviolence, unity and communal harmony.
Secondly, he wasn't in the least bit racist, I would be more than ecstatic to corroborate my claim if you want
And whether you want to honour him or not, is completely upto you. You are entitled to hold your own opinion, after all. Everybody has a different perspective and I say all this in the most innocuous way possible, truly I do.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

RollieFingaz In reply to EngulfedInAReverie [2015-02-02 14:35:48 +0000 UTC]

youtu.be/NNwheD3K9DY

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DrMostafaMortaja In reply to LORDTyb [2015-01-31 12:08:20 +0000 UTC]

I strongly agree with you . Indeed why shoyld we honer such a man who with the help of the English devided India and supported discrmination .

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

EliTigre In reply to Baka-Lee [2015-01-31 14:40:03 +0000 UTC]

Seriously ? No man can be perfect, you moron. I bet my life that if he has been taught how wrong he was he would have changed his mind. He was not a monster, just a mistaken man. That gives you no freaking right to deny he was a hero of his people you jerk. And unlike you Mr. King was an intelligent person, so he must have understood this. Plus Mahatma never meant any harm to black people, and actually tried to get down the class thing he just failed to do it while he was trying to free his country, mind you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Baka-Lee In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-02 16:26:48 +0000 UTC]

Aww, he didn't mean any harm? I'm so glad that you know that... Somehow... How do you know this exactly? Hop in a time machine, pick up his language and ask?

Ouch, I'm a moron and a jerk. Those two things may be true, but I would argue that it's also completely moronic to praise this "mistaken man" as more than what he was. People refer to Ghandi as if he weren't a flawed human being, like he was some kind of demi-god. Or something. Most people don't even know that he was flawed or mean or dirty. 

And some people that do deny it. Why? What's good is there in having an icon that really wasn't that iconic? No denying he did a great thing by removing the English, but the ultimate result of that wasn't even all that great. In fact it turned out quite badly for his own people.

Are poeple like yourself so desperate to have something to look up to that you willingly ignore the tact that this guy was just a person?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EliTigre In reply to Baka-Lee [2015-02-03 20:51:50 +0000 UTC]

Last comment here; I know he was JUST a person, and that is the reason I admire him. If you had properly read my comment, you would have seen that I know he is as human as me, and he may have made mistakes. You are right, I was not given the power to travel through time on my birthbed, but neither were you, Mr. Smartass. And there you are, trying to tarnish the wonderful man he was, accusing him of thing he didn't do, or had no control over. I know he failed at the end, and that gives me a bittersweet feeling, but I also know that he tried hard, and that if he had commited horrors, like an attack on black people, the British would have used it against him, even if themselves didn't give a damn about blacks in reality. I wouldn't call him "racist", but "ignorant". Not that it's better, but he still deserves to be called the Prince of Peace, because he did more than any human ever imagined, as far as I know. Without any wish to start a contest, Mr. King didn't go through the same thing as him, didn't starve himself to make the battles stop. He did a different thing, that I judge less dangerous, even if it still was at the end, but as useful.

So you can always say that I believe in total bullshit, that I have no proof, but you neither. I chose to believe Mahatma deserves to bear his name. But I agree I got a little carried away, and got angry; not that I am sorry, tho, I think every word I said, safe for the insults. Very mature of me. But I understand if you believed I was some sort of fanatic here, that looked like it XD and you can disagree. I don't care.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Baka-Lee In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-04 00:28:43 +0000 UTC]

Don't plan on answering my question, then, eh? Shock.

Dude, are you kidding? There have been multiple people who've driven out invading armies throughout history. If the only reason you like Gandhi for it is because he did so with minimal bloodshed then you, and everyone like you, are fooling yourself. Ghandi practiced peaceful actions... for the most part. While in South Africa he seems to have become frustrated with the Brittish opinion that Indian people weren't built for active military duty. So he brought brought together Indian volunteers to train to fight alongside them.

So yes, even Gandhi promoted violence at some point. 

Yes, Gandhi was racist. Here is a link to the collected works of Gandhi: www.gandhiserve.org/e/cwmg/cwm…   

If you want to reduce the reading time, trust me it's a lot to go through, you can check out some Wikipedia articles on the subject that refer to specific volumes and pages. Or, better yet, just open a volume and search the word "kaffir", which was the Indian equivalent of "nigger". See how much he uses it, see his disdain for the Brittish comparing Indians to them, see how he refers to them as not much better than animals. BTW, when he felt like being less insulting, he used "natives" when he was in South Africa.

The things you believe Gandhi to be great for are lies. No one is ever either as evil or as good as history likes to make them seem. Grow up.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EliTigre In reply to Baka-Lee [2015-02-05 21:39:10 +0000 UTC]

I still have time for growing up, no worries. And I "promised" it would be my last comment cuz I didn't want to get in a quarrel, since we don't have the same point of view at all, it'd be unproductive. Thanks for the link tho. But I know that Mahatma is not that  great. But he's still great. As a simple man I think he managed big. Him being racist shows he had flaws, but I don't think that counts. Everyone was racist at that time; no one had the intelligence to reconsider the fact that color skin didn't matter. Because it would be like asking a Middle-Age man to use a smartphone. It's too soon. So yeah, it pains me for Mahatma to have had those beliefs, but I don't think they were intentional. And he fought or made others fight. Okay, that doesn't follow what he promised. But it still doesn't matter, it doesn't make what he did less honorable in its wholeness.
I don't know why I'm even telling this.You won't agree anyway. But thanks for debating, I guess.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Baka-Lee In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-07 18:05:47 +0000 UTC]

Still no answer? 

Yeah, I can tell you're so lighthearted and care-free. You don't care at all about this, do you?

So, let me get this straight. I have sent you actual, real proof of Gandhi's not only racist regard of people with darker skin than his own, but also his interest in taking up arms in war for no othr purpose than to prove that he could. And you will still make excuses for him.

Why?

His beliefs were not intentional? What does that even mean? Is that like saying "well, I set fire to that house, but didn't actually intend for it to burn."?

Are you saying he was ignorant, then? I would like to agree with that, but Gandhi was a highly intelligent man. He was a lawyer, he spoke several languages, and he obviously had a talent for speaking. 

But highly intelligent does not equal good. in fact, a lot of highly intelligent men in the past have been quite horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I know that there was plenty of racism to go around at the time. While Gandhi was doing is thing, Amreicans were hanging slaves without a second thought.

But what that means is that Gandhi was no better than them. He was just a guy who could talk. Yes, he got the English out peacefully. That's wonderful. BUT, he had no opposition towards violence and even practiced it later. As far as I'm concerned those two things cancel each other out.

I'm sorry this is getting long-winded. I'm just going to end by saying that I don't think Gandhi was evil, especially for that time. But I also think he was nothing special and deserves no highly regarded remembrance. People need to stop believing without asking questions.

I'll happily read your reply if you have one, but I think this will be my last response. Thank you for debating with me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EliTigre In reply to Baka-Lee [2015-02-07 20:06:46 +0000 UTC]

Sorry, you just got lost in my mailbox XD
Yeah, he's not that... heroic ? I partly agree and understand your point. I haven't said it out loud, but I'd say he was also quite a fool, in a way. I called him my "idol" because it was simplier, but I know how flawed he was. Even if he fought, he still believed in his non-violent way. Dunno if you get what I mean -then again I agree with you on how Gandhi is nothing like perfect, but that's what makes him so incredible in my eyes. He tried to accomplish something idealistic and used ways as idealistic, while he also acted like other humans. I think he did things who deserve to be remembered, and make him someone to remember too, but I get your point, not as if he was the perfect godlike hero he's said to be. That's fine to me. I remember him as someone who tried, and started something big, that Mr King continued even better, and that others will carry on that path, I hope.
Sorry to have started as a fanatic this "argument", and thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Baka-Lee In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-08 03:39:38 +0000 UTC]

Okay, one more. lol

No worries! I can get pretty intense about things that may not even matter very much. But even when that happens I do enjoy seeing not only other people's thoughts, but their reasoning behind them.

I think you summed up Mr. Gandhi quite well. I suppose that of someone as awesome as King was inspired by Gandhi to do what was right, then he truly did have worth afterall.

Have a good one!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Canis44 In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-03 22:52:33 +0000 UTC]

Your condition for admiring Gandhi is that he "was just a person." I think that says everything about your supposed 'critical thought'. Moreover, being passive aggressive does not make you mature.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EliTigre In reply to Canis44 [2015-02-05 21:24:08 +0000 UTC]

O_____o Ever heard of blatant obvious ironic self-mockery ? Plus I meant that I didn't consider him as a demi god, not that I agreed with everything he told. And you more likely totally misunderstood my point, on purpose it seems. Lovely.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Canis44 In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-06 01:34:51 +0000 UTC]

You dug a hole, and now you just buried yourself in it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EliTigre In reply to Canis44 [2015-02-06 08:43:05 +0000 UTC]

Your way of seeing things, got my own, thanksfully. Not that I really understand what you mean anyway.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AquasProductions In reply to EliTigre [2015-02-01 01:25:46 +0000 UTC]

Nice repaste. ;3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Varmine In reply to Baka-Lee [2015-01-31 10:16:03 +0000 UTC]

Being a social justice warrior isn't worth your time.If people choose to see the good and not the bad,let them.Not worth bruising someone's day.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Baka-Lee In reply to Varmine [2015-02-02 16:15:12 +0000 UTC]

See, I disagree. That's the sort of though process that promotes ignorance. And bigotry. And those two things are bad. No, no, sure let's have everyone just look at the surface of what's being presented to them. That shiny, high-gloss finish being used as a cover-up. Brilliant.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Varmine In reply to Baka-Lee [2015-02-02 19:44:31 +0000 UTC]

Thankyou for your wisdom on the matter ,though,With tact,2 days later,I don't care to argue.If you scroll down a little you'll note I apologised.And I don't want or expect a response ,since this topic isn't personal in the first place.As in my apology I'll repeat,I probably shouldn't have said anything.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Baka-Lee In reply to Varmine [2015-02-02 22:56:06 +0000 UTC]

Oh. It didn't show up in my inbox for some reason. Sorry. I don't bother comment chasing on the original page anymore. Too much time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0