5 ms·

The actions of those people are romanticised and from those actions is constructed a metaphorical figure that resembles, but does not equal the actual man. You

by Asooka 8y ago

The actions of those people are romanticised and from those actions is constructed a metaphorical figure that resembles, but does not equal the actual man. You need the man in order to have a story and you need the story in order to convey the message. The idealised romantic Gandhi is a tool with which to illustrate the moral, and an ideal for which to strive. Of course you shouldn't mirror Gandhi in all matters, but his idealised version is still a good example to follow. Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the morals of social justice his activism taught us? Is he such a monster that you would destroy your own culture and society by denying them the good examples he set with the other part of his life? In a way you're cutting off your nose to spite someone else's face. What Gandhi did is done and whoever can claim damages that should be repaid can claim them via court. But the man is dead now and putting him on trial is a disservice to his memory and to our culture.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the moral" Yes. Gandhi - during the height of his 'moral claims' - was a 70 year old man sleeping with a harem of young girls, urging them not to sleep with their husbands, got erections, possibly had intercourse, and then talked about it, and oppressed / moved aside anyone who didn't agree. The logic he would use to validate his sexual predation is byzantine, i.e. based on a 'spiritual experiment', and exactly the same as the insane logic that cult leaders use: "If I don't let Manu sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should," he announced, "wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?" [1] He's also on the record with hyper racist, xenophobic and Hindu nationalist rhetoric. Gandhi was a Hindu nationalist, of the same vein as most other nationalists - but he used 'non violent' populist rhetoric because he was an intellect and 'non violence' was going to be the only reproach that would work. Were Indians to be able to organize in terms of hard power during the Raj, they certainly would have i.e. Momar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, even George Washington! India has a different culture and so their 'George Washington' was going to look a little different. But the issue is not Gandhi of course : the issue is the perception of Gandhi. Consider how much hagiography there is out there about Gandhi - even his Wikipedia page is not only bereft of his questionable behaviour, but it's turned upside down! Have a look [2] His Wiki entry states that 'his time in South Africa' was formative, and enabled him to develop his views on racism, Imperialism etc. etc. - when in fact, at the very same time, we have him on record with his most racist ideology: "Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness,” and he campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans." [3] So the 'common public record' is distorted to the point that it's totally upside down! This is because the 'common public record' is guarded by groups in the East who want to maintain his idol status, and groups in the West who want to embrace particularly his anti-Imperial (read: anti Western?) views. Gandhi did some very good things for Hindu India surely, and had some very positive and powerful things to day, but he was hugely flawed. Hey, George Washington fought for a war of 'independence' where 'all men should be free' ... and he had slaves! It is what it is. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/featu... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/what-did-mahatma-gandhi-think-of-black-people/?utm_term=.8d166a7cb356 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03...
- intended 8y ago
  This is calumny, to the point that there is a 3 year old badhistory post specifically dealing with these insinuations. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3iiwxr/the_sexual_proclivities_of_one_mohandas_k_gandhi/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3iiwxr/the_sexu... > he interesting thing about Gandhi, though, was that his views did evolve and change. What he saw and experienced in South Africa changed his views on racial supremacy, particularly in Africa. By 1906, he wrote about the Bambatha Rebellion, saying: >>"The Zulu 'rebellion' was full of new experiences and gave me much food for thought. The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the 'rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers' rifles exploding like crackers in innocent Hamlets, and to live in the midst of them was a trial. But I swallowed the bitter draught, especially as the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulus. I could see that but for us the Zulus would have been uncared for. This work, therefore, eased my conscience."" >Working in and among Africans humanised them for him, and made it so that his ideas of them changed. Much like any other human being, Gandhi grew and learned from his experiences. Would it have been great from the outset if he'd known that Africans were equal people? Sure, but in the early 20th century, I'm not going to fault him for being racist and then changing.

by Asooka 8y ago

sonnyblarney 8y ago

"Were Gandhi's actions so abhorrent as to make it good to tear down the moral" Yes. Gandhi - during the height of his 'moral claims' - was a 70 year old man sleeping with a harem of young girls, urging them not to sleep with their husbands, got erections, possibly had intercourse, and then talked about it, and oppressed / moved aside anyone who didn't agree. The logic he would use to validate his sexual predation is byzantine, i.e. based on a 'spiritual experiment', and exactly the same as the insane logic that cult leaders use: "If I don't let Manu sleep with me, though I regard it as essential that she should," he announced, "wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?" [1] He's also on the record with hyper racist, xenophobic and Hindu nationalist rhetoric. Gandhi was a Hindu nationalist, of the same vein as most other nationalists - but he used 'non violent' populist rhetoric because he was an intellect and 'non violence' was going to be the only reproach that would work. Were Indians to be able to organize in terms of hard power during the Raj, they certainly would have i.e. Momar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, even George Washington! India has a different culture and so their 'George Washington' was going to look a little different. But the issue is not Gandhi of course : the issue is the perception of Gandhi. Consider how much hagiography there is out there about Gandhi - even his Wikipedia page is not only bereft of his questionable behaviour, but it's turned upside down! Have a look [2] His Wiki entry states that 'his time in South Africa' was formative, and enabled him to develop his views on racism, Imperialism etc. etc. - when in fact, at the very same time, we have him on record with his most racist ideology: "Gandhi described black Africans as “savage,” “raw” and living a life of “indolence and nakedness,” and he campaigned relentlessly to prove to the British rulers that the Indian community in South Africa was superior to native black Africans." [3] So the 'common public record' is distorted to the point that it's totally upside down! This is because the 'common public record' is guarded by groups in the East who want to maintain his idol status, and groups in the West who want to embrace particularly his anti-Imperial (read: anti Western?) views. Gandhi did some very good things for Hindu India surely, and had some very positive and powerful things to day, but he was hugely flawed. Hey, George Washington fought for a war of 'independence' where 'all men should be free' ... and he had slaves! It is what it is. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/featu... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03/what-did-mahatma-gandhi-think-of-black-people/?utm_term=.8d166a7cb356 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/03...

intended 8y ago
This is calumny, to the point that there is a 3 year old badhistory post specifically dealing with these insinuations. https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3iiwxr/the_sexual_proclivities_of_one_mohandas_k_gandhi/ https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3iiwxr/the_sexu... > he interesting thing about Gandhi, though, was that his views did evolve and change. What he saw and experienced in South Africa changed his views on racial supremacy, particularly in Africa. By 1906, he wrote about the Bambatha Rebellion, saying: >>"The Zulu 'rebellion' was full of new experiences and gave me much food for thought. The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the 'rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers' rifles exploding like crackers in innocent Hamlets, and to live in the midst of them was a trial. But I swallowed the bitter draught, especially as the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulus. I could see that but for us the Zulus would have been uncared for. This work, therefore, eased my conscience."" >Working in and among Africans humanised them for him, and made it so that his ideas of them changed. Much like any other human being, Gandhi grew and learned from his experiences. Would it have been great from the outset if he'd known that Africans were equal people? Sure, but in the early 20th century, I'm not going to fault him for being racist and then changing.