6 ms·

Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

pnako 7y ago
#CancelGandhi
- NPC32419419 7y ago
  #CancelCancelCulture
- valarauko 7y ago
  Nathuram Godse likes this.
rapsey 7y ago
This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.
- sshagent 7y ago
  Exactly. Else we might as well consider anyone who ever said anything more than ten years most likely a bigot, sexist and generally horrible....which with todays context is probably accurate.
  - growlist 7y ago
    Perhaps that also says something interesting about today's mores, unless one thinks we have already achieved perfection.
- dagw 7y ago
  This is hardly recent. I remember hearing this exact conversation about Gandhi at least 25 years ago.
  - tim333 7y ago
    Yeah some of his earlier stuff was never very PC eg. >At a speech in Mumbai in 1896, Gandhi said that the Europeans in Natal wished “to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”
    - intended 7y ago
      And it’s a trend now to highlight those aspects/speeches and not highlight the change in his beliefs and maturity- essentially Gandhi is a story of someone who overthrew the stereotypes of race shackling his mind. But if you present only the first part of the story though, it’s easy to diminish him as racist.
    - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
      he said that in his twenties, when he was loyal servant to the british crown. Freedom movement, ahimsa, indepedence etc all came later. Much, much later. There are lot to hold Gandhi accountable for - things he believed and did after he became the mahatma/saint. His own fundamentalist believes (religious and other unscientific irrational backward believes), his tolerance of islamic fundamentalism even when it was killing thousands for restoring the caliphate that British eliminated post WW1(for the sake of unity against british), his actions that worsened the hindu-muslim relations that resulted in even more riots and deaths, him considering and treating his wife as his personal property and denying her life saving meds due to his belliefs in quack science, his belief in the caste system (even though he fought for the rights of the lower castes, he believed in the varna system and held on to the theory that it's misused), how he acted like a dictator and sidelined anyone who didn't toe his line, his irrational believes in life after death resulting in misplaced advices on taking ones on life when faced with genocide/murder (he gave the same advice to jews facing nazis and the poor hindus facing mass murder in noakhali - apparently non violence is so important, even self defense should not be), his decisions (such as quit india movement) that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of poor indian nationalists while he just watched away unmoved with their deaths/suffering - many more. I would start with Ambedkar's writings/exchanges on/with Gandhi to get details. As an Indian, he is no saint to me, but I see why people consider him one. Having said that, it's beyond laughable to condemn him for what he said in his twenties when he was loyal servant to the british and compare that to what he became later.
- mruniverse 7y ago
  We laude past figures with our current criteria for acceptable behavior. Why not criticize?
  - i_am_nomad 7y ago
    That is a very interesting way to look at this, one I hadn’t yet considered.
  - guitarbill 7y ago
    There's a difference between giving past figures a pass for horrible things, and invalidating them via nit-picking. Life is not black and white, so wanting to see saints instead of flawed humans who made the world a bit or a lot better is probably not a great approach. Everybody will have some flaw if you look hard enough. People can also change. Maybe they would have benefited from growing up in a different environment. Breaking out of the way everybody around you thinks is hard enough in one area. Judging someone as a whole is pretty tricky, too. Generally this is left to deities. Is it possible to celebrate the good things someone has done without it being a full endorsement of everything they ever did and said?
    - mruniverse 7y ago
      Is it possible to celebrate the good things someone has done without it being a full endorsement of everything they ever did and said? I guess that depends if you're the injured party. If not, that might make criticisms seem "nit-picking".
  - rapsey 7y ago
    Because we laud them for their undeniable achievements. Criticizing with current criteria of acceptable behavior is just an ad hominem.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      I think it's quite healthy to be able to discuss say, a person's legacy, from different angles rather than restrict discussion to only the good parts.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  What's the difference between discussing and 'taking down'? Is there any way to talk about this without disturbing you, or would you rather that this topic not be discussed at all?
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    Well, they literally took down a statue of Gandhi. I wonder if we just won't be able to have statues any more? Or, we can only have statues of people whose lives are largely inscrutable or unknown to the public.
    - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
      The University of Ghana removed a statue of Gandhi last year, that had been there since 2016, after several professors petitioned for its removal. Is this the takedown you are referring to, that makes you fear about all statues in general?
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        Why would you represent my viewpoint as a fear about statues futures, unless you were intentionally trying to misrepresent my point in order to make your own point. Do you honestly think I am fearful about the future of statues?
        CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        I must have misunderstood you then, sorry. Can you explain better what you meant by "I wonder if we just won't be able to have statues any more?", if it was not fretting over the future of statues?
    - geofft 7y ago
      I'd rather live in a world with meaningful public discussion of controversial topics than a world with statues, if that's really the choice we face.
- JustFinishedBSG 7y ago
  Gandhi already didn't meet the criteria for acceptable behavior during his lifetime though. It's just that people didn't know.
  - rapsey 7y ago
    Such a person is always a person of extremes. The past just allowed for things to be hidden more then they can be now. > Gandhi already didn't meet the criteria for acceptable behavior during his lifetime though. That is always a matter of context. If you ask the British at the time no aspect of his met the criteria of acceptable behavior.
    - DanielleMolloy 7y ago
      I could name a few influential persons of the previous century on spot who were not persons of extremes in the Ghandi sense.
    - newjersey 7y ago
      Speaking of the British, it is funny how Indians question Gandhi's legacy based on his personal life and contrast it to the English people who voted Sir Winston Churchill number one in 100 greatest Britons.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  I don't see anything disturbing there. In fact, having double standards is far more disturbing to me, a mindset which can allow a lot of self-justifiable amoral behavior. Historical figures are what they are - part of history, nobody is/should be changing that. But if one wants to look up to somebody these days, have them as some sort of role model, well then they better be up to current (and ideally even future) standards. This way, life and morals are relatively simple, pure and hard to bend. Which might not serve some types of personalities very well, but that's another topic and frankly their own (self) fight
  - rapsey 7y ago
    > But if one wants to look up to somebody these days, have them as some sort of role model, well then they better be up to current (and ideally even future) standards. Unless the person looking for a role model is insane, they will look at the parts of the person that they admire to emulate. Not every aspect and behavioral trait.
- cancelculture 7y ago
  It's almost like cancel culture is running out of current day folk to attack, and is having to skim through the archives to feed their rabid reddit, facebook and twitter fetid output.
- nabla9 7y ago
  Their failings don't remove their achievements. In the case of Gandhi it's not just the current criteria. Even during his time people saw him as a shitty person. It's good that we stop worshiping great men. Rabindranath Tagore saw him as a nihilist with fierce joy of annihilation. Many Dalits (untouchables) saw Gandhi as the enemy. While he worked alongside them in some aspects, he was patronizing towards them. Ambedkar said that Gandhi did not deserve to be called mahatma. Gandhi was monster towards his family. He denied education for his family and tried to force his sons to celibacy. He was against giving his wife penicillin to safe her life for religious reasons and she died. When he himself became a sick soon after, taking quinine was suddenly OK. Gandhi was a fanatical opponent of sex for pleasure. But just because he didn't do intercourse didn't mean he was not sexually active. For all his celibacy, he had a harem of teenage girls who fought hysterically for the opportunity to sleep naked with him and hold him. Those same girls also gave him his daily enema. He was in today's terminology into 'assplay' and practiced erotic sexual denial with underage girls.
  - fouc 7y ago
    citation needed
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      Well you could read up on Ambdekar, or on Gandhi's hunger strike against untouchable representation. Or his documented letters promoting segregation, also between Indians and Africans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
  - Roritharr 7y ago
    This is one of the TILs that I could gladly have skipped. I mean, sometimes you'd rather have a wrong, but more peaceful picture of the world, than live with the impression that literally everyone out has a very dark side to them...
    - fyfy18 7y ago
      Sad but true. Enough internet for today I think...
- ricc 7y ago
  I personally believe that bringing revered heroes back down to earth is beneficial in the long the run. This humanizes them and hopefully will make the common folk realize that whatever they achieved, they can also achieve. And if more people will have that mindset, I think human progress will accelerate.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
  I've been rewatching The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air recently, and from some of the protagonist's behaviour and script, I'm surprised Will Smith hasn't yet drawn the ire of the perpetually offended. Of course, we know that moral standards aren't applied equally…
- beerandt 7y ago
  Martin Luther argued for the holocaust after starting the reformation. Nelson Mandela was involved in the terror attacks that burned political enemies alive. Abraham Lincoln despised the black population (certainly moreso than Robert E Lee) and argued against any steps toward social or civic equality.
growlist 7y ago
Kind of amusing that Gandhi was attacked from the establishment, imperialist side by Churchill, and is now under attack from the opposite side. Poor Gandhi can't win.
- quetzthecoatl 7y ago
  somehow i feel it's the same side. The "establishment" uses whatever is the trendy means. He is a human, not a saint. It's good that people point out stupid things he believed in/did/said - it only humanizes Gandhi.
  - amundsentb 7y ago
    Can we not be allowed to have heroes without someone mentioning that they go to the toilet the same as us?
    - growlist 7y ago
      I notice this also. I wonder whether it's part of the general policy that seems to be prevalent of keeping the public in an ongoing state of confusion.
    - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
      Of course. Does all heroes need to be saints? I think not.
- pliny 7y ago
  >Poor Gandhi can't win https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30/enacted
rishav_sharan 7y ago
Fairly rubbish article. It didn't go in depth about any such allegations. Yes, Gandhi in his earlier years would have been a racist by today's standards. And he did evolve as his views on humanity evolved. This is a far better article on his "racism" https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/how-gandhi-shed-his-racist-robe/cid/1679529 https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/how-gandhi-shed-his-rac...
trax 7y ago
gandhi is cancelled HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
ricc 7y ago
I highly recommend Joseph Lelyveld's book[0] to anyone interested in reading a generally unbiased biography of Gandhi. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soul:_Mahatma_Gandhi_and_His_Struggle_with_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soul:_Mahatma_Gandhi_and...
jamil7 7y ago
Revolutionaries are ordinary human beings with real character flaws and struggles. A lot of them have been people looking for redemtion or with nothing left to lose.
bansheehash 7y ago
If anyone is looking to understand more about the Gandhi phenomenon, I recently read (and highly recommend) Arundhati Roy's meticulously referenced introduction to "Annihilation of Caste". She does a terrific job of identifying the motivations of Gandhi and his supporters https://www.amazon.com/Annihilation-Caste-Annotated-B-R-Ambedkar/dp/1784783528 https://www.amazon.com/Annihilation-Caste-Annotated-B-R-Ambe...
emmelaich 7y ago
Worth reading: The Gandhi Nobody Knows https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-gandhi-nobody-knows/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-gandhi-nobod...
puranjay 7y ago
I don't know enough about Gandhi's views on race to comment here, but his views on sex have to be seen in the context of the Indian society at that time. This historical revisionism is so absurd. It expects people to be isolated from their social context.
ptah 7y ago
I would actually hold him up as an example of how to move from being racist to becoming a fighter against racism. either way his development of non-violent resistance is still invaluable
holstvoogd 7y ago
As with many historical figures, I feel we need to separate the person from their legacy & achievements more. Yes Gandhi was a dick, but the fight for a free India and the end of the caste system seems a good cause to me. That doesn't mean it was 'all worth it' or 'ok, beacuse...'; it means the person and the effects they had on the world are not the same thing. A terrible person can do good & a good person can commit heinous acts. The other way around the ridiculousness is more obvious: The nazis fixed the German economy and saved the country from collapse; so the whole genocide and war thing are no longer relevant?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
howeyc 7y ago
How much further does this go until cancel culture jumps the shark? Good riddance.

#CancelGandhi

NPC32419419 7y ago
#CancelCancelCulture
valarauko 7y ago
Nathuram Godse likes this.

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

sshagent 7y ago
Exactly. Else we might as well consider anyone who ever said anything more than ten years most likely a bigot, sexist and generally horrible....which with todays context is probably accurate.
- growlist 7y ago
  Perhaps that also says something interesting about today's mores, unless one thinks we have already achieved perfection.
dagw 7y ago
This is hardly recent. I remember hearing this exact conversation about Gandhi at least 25 years ago.
- tim333 7y ago
  Yeah some of his earlier stuff was never very PC eg. >At a speech in Mumbai in 1896, Gandhi said that the Europeans in Natal wished “to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”
  - intended 7y ago
    And it’s a trend now to highlight those aspects/speeches and not highlight the change in his beliefs and maturity- essentially Gandhi is a story of someone who overthrew the stereotypes of race shackling his mind. But if you present only the first part of the story though, it’s easy to diminish him as racist.
  - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
    he said that in his twenties, when he was loyal servant to the british crown. Freedom movement, ahimsa, indepedence etc all came later. Much, much later. There are lot to hold Gandhi accountable for - things he believed and did after he became the mahatma/saint. His own fundamentalist believes (religious and other unscientific irrational backward believes), his tolerance of islamic fundamentalism even when it was killing thousands for restoring the caliphate that British eliminated post WW1(for the sake of unity against british), his actions that worsened the hindu-muslim relations that resulted in even more riots and deaths, him considering and treating his wife as his personal property and denying her life saving meds due to his belliefs in quack science, his belief in the caste system (even though he fought for the rights of the lower castes, he believed in the varna system and held on to the theory that it's misused), how he acted like a dictator and sidelined anyone who didn't toe his line, his irrational believes in life after death resulting in misplaced advices on taking ones on life when faced with genocide/murder (he gave the same advice to jews facing nazis and the poor hindus facing mass murder in noakhali - apparently non violence is so important, even self defense should not be), his decisions (such as quit india movement) that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of poor indian nationalists while he just watched away unmoved with their deaths/suffering - many more. I would start with Ambedkar's writings/exchanges on/with Gandhi to get details. As an Indian, he is no saint to me, but I see why people consider him one. Having said that, it's beyond laughable to condemn him for what he said in his twenties when he was loyal servant to the british and compare that to what he became later.
mruniverse 7y ago
We laude past figures with our current criteria for acceptable behavior. Why not criticize?
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  That is a very interesting way to look at this, one I hadn’t yet considered.
- guitarbill 7y ago
  There's a difference between giving past figures a pass for horrible things, and invalidating them via nit-picking. Life is not black and white, so wanting to see saints instead of flawed humans who made the world a bit or a lot better is probably not a great approach. Everybody will have some flaw if you look hard enough. People can also change. Maybe they would have benefited from growing up in a different environment. Breaking out of the way everybody around you thinks is hard enough in one area. Judging someone as a whole is pretty tricky, too. Generally this is left to deities. Is it possible to celebrate the good things someone has done without it being a full endorsement of everything they ever did and said?
  - mruniverse 7y ago
    Is it possible to celebrate the good things someone has done without it being a full endorsement of everything they ever did and said? I guess that depends if you're the injured party. If not, that might make criticisms seem "nit-picking".
- rapsey 7y ago
  Because we laud them for their undeniable achievements. Criticizing with current criteria of acceptable behavior is just an ad hominem.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    I think it's quite healthy to be able to discuss say, a person's legacy, from different angles rather than restrict discussion to only the good parts.
CathedralBorrow 7y ago
What's the difference between discussing and 'taking down'? Is there any way to talk about this without disturbing you, or would you rather that this topic not be discussed at all?
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Well, they literally took down a statue of Gandhi. I wonder if we just won't be able to have statues any more? Or, we can only have statues of people whose lives are largely inscrutable or unknown to the public.
  - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
    The University of Ghana removed a statue of Gandhi last year, that had been there since 2016, after several professors petitioned for its removal. Is this the takedown you are referring to, that makes you fear about all statues in general?
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      Why would you represent my viewpoint as a fear about statues futures, unless you were intentionally trying to misrepresent my point in order to make your own point. Do you honestly think I am fearful about the future of statues?
      - CathedralBorrow 7y ago
        I must have misunderstood you then, sorry. Can you explain better what you meant by "I wonder if we just won't be able to have statues any more?", if it was not fretting over the future of statues?
  - geofft 7y ago
    I'd rather live in a world with meaningful public discussion of controversial topics than a world with statues, if that's really the choice we face.
JustFinishedBSG 7y ago
Gandhi already didn't meet the criteria for acceptable behavior during his lifetime though. It's just that people didn't know.
- rapsey 7y ago
  Such a person is always a person of extremes. The past just allowed for things to be hidden more then they can be now. > Gandhi already didn't meet the criteria for acceptable behavior during his lifetime though. That is always a matter of context. If you ask the British at the time no aspect of his met the criteria of acceptable behavior.
  - DanielleMolloy 7y ago
    I could name a few influential persons of the previous century on spot who were not persons of extremes in the Ghandi sense.
  - newjersey 7y ago
    Speaking of the British, it is funny how Indians question Gandhi's legacy based on his personal life and contrast it to the English people who voted Sir Winston Churchill number one in 100 greatest Britons.
saiya-jin 7y ago
I don't see anything disturbing there. In fact, having double standards is far more disturbing to me, a mindset which can allow a lot of self-justifiable amoral behavior. Historical figures are what they are - part of history, nobody is/should be changing that. But if one wants to look up to somebody these days, have them as some sort of role model, well then they better be up to current (and ideally even future) standards. This way, life and morals are relatively simple, pure and hard to bend. Which might not serve some types of personalities very well, but that's another topic and frankly their own (self) fight
- rapsey 7y ago
  > But if one wants to look up to somebody these days, have them as some sort of role model, well then they better be up to current (and ideally even future) standards. Unless the person looking for a role model is insane, they will look at the parts of the person that they admire to emulate. Not every aspect and behavioral trait.
cancelculture 7y ago
It's almost like cancel culture is running out of current day folk to attack, and is having to skim through the archives to feed their rabid reddit, facebook and twitter fetid output.
nabla9 7y ago
Their failings don't remove their achievements. In the case of Gandhi it's not just the current criteria. Even during his time people saw him as a shitty person. It's good that we stop worshiping great men. Rabindranath Tagore saw him as a nihilist with fierce joy of annihilation. Many Dalits (untouchables) saw Gandhi as the enemy. While he worked alongside them in some aspects, he was patronizing towards them. Ambedkar said that Gandhi did not deserve to be called mahatma. Gandhi was monster towards his family. He denied education for his family and tried to force his sons to celibacy. He was against giving his wife penicillin to safe her life for religious reasons and she died. When he himself became a sick soon after, taking quinine was suddenly OK. Gandhi was a fanatical opponent of sex for pleasure. But just because he didn't do intercourse didn't mean he was not sexually active. For all his celibacy, he had a harem of teenage girls who fought hysterically for the opportunity to sleep naked with him and hold him. Those same girls also gave him his daily enema. He was in today's terminology into 'assplay' and practiced erotic sexual denial with underage girls.
- fouc 7y ago
  citation needed
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    Well you could read up on Ambdekar, or on Gandhi's hunger strike against untouchable representation. Or his documented letters promoting segregation, also between Indians and Africans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar
- Roritharr 7y ago
  This is one of the TILs that I could gladly have skipped. I mean, sometimes you'd rather have a wrong, but more peaceful picture of the world, than live with the impression that literally everyone out has a very dark side to them...
  - fyfy18 7y ago
    Sad but true. Enough internet for today I think...
ricc 7y ago
I personally believe that bringing revered heroes back down to earth is beneficial in the long the run. This humanizes them and hopefully will make the common folk realize that whatever they achieved, they can also achieve. And if more people will have that mindset, I think human progress will accelerate.
yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
I've been rewatching The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air recently, and from some of the protagonist's behaviour and script, I'm surprised Will Smith hasn't yet drawn the ire of the perpetually offended. Of course, we know that moral standards aren't applied equally…
beerandt 7y ago
Martin Luther argued for the holocaust after starting the reformation. Nelson Mandela was involved in the terror attacks that burned political enemies alive. Abraham Lincoln despised the black population (certainly moreso than Robert E Lee) and argued against any steps toward social or civic equality.

growlist 7y ago

Kind of amusing that Gandhi was attacked from the establishment, imperialist side by Churchill, and is now under attack from the opposite side. Poor Gandhi can't win.

quetzthecoatl 7y ago
somehow i feel it's the same side. The "establishment" uses whatever is the trendy means. He is a human, not a saint. It's good that people point out stupid things he believed in/did/said - it only humanizes Gandhi.
- amundsentb 7y ago
  Can we not be allowed to have heroes without someone mentioning that they go to the toilet the same as us?
  - growlist 7y ago
    I notice this also. I wonder whether it's part of the general policy that seems to be prevalent of keeping the public in an ongoing state of confusion.
  - quetzthecoatl 7y ago
    Of course. Does all heroes need to be saints? I think not.
pliny 7y ago
>Poor Gandhi can't win https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30/enacted

rishav_sharan 7y ago

Fairly rubbish article. It didn't go in depth about any such allegations. Yes, Gandhi in his earlier years would have been a racist by today's standards. And he did evolve as his views on humanity evolved. This is a far better article on his "racism" https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/how-gandhi-shed-his-racist-robe/cid/1679529 https://m.telegraphindia.com/opinion/how-gandhi-shed-his-rac...

trax 7y ago

gandhi is cancelled HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ricc 7y ago

I highly recommend Joseph Lelyveld's book[0] to anyone interested in reading a generally unbiased biography of Gandhi. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soul:_Mahatma_Gandhi_and_His_Struggle_with_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Soul:_Mahatma_Gandhi_and...

jamil7 7y ago

Revolutionaries are ordinary human beings with real character flaws and struggles. A lot of them have been people looking for redemtion or with nothing left to lose.

bansheehash 7y ago

If anyone is looking to understand more about the Gandhi phenomenon, I recently read (and highly recommend) Arundhati Roy's meticulously referenced introduction to "Annihilation of Caste". She does a terrific job of identifying the motivations of Gandhi and his supporters https://www.amazon.com/Annihilation-Caste-Annotated-B-R-Ambedkar/dp/1784783528 https://www.amazon.com/Annihilation-Caste-Annotated-B-R-Ambe...

emmelaich 7y ago

Worth reading: The Gandhi Nobody Knows https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-gandhi-nobody-knows/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-gandhi-nobod...

puranjay 7y ago

I don't know enough about Gandhi's views on race to comment here, but his views on sex have to be seen in the context of the Indian society at that time. This historical revisionism is so absurd. It expects people to be isolated from their social context.

ptah 7y ago

I would actually hold him up as an example of how to move from being racist to becoming a fighter against racism. either way his development of non-violent resistance is still invaluable

holstvoogd 7y ago

As with many historical figures, I feel we need to separate the person from their legacy & achievements more. Yes Gandhi was a dick, but the fight for a free India and the end of the caste system seems a good cause to me. That doesn't mean it was 'all worth it' or 'ok, beacuse...'; it means the person and the effects they had on the world are not the same thing. A terrible person can do good & a good person can commit heinous acts. The other way around the ridiculousness is more obvious: The nazis fixed the German economy and saved the country from collapse; so the whole genocide and war thing are no longer relevant?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

howeyc 7y ago

How much further does this go until cancel culture jumps the shark? Good riddance.