3 ms·

This is hardly recent. I remember hearing this exact conversation about Gandhi at least 25 years ago.

by dagw 7y 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.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
rapsey 7y ago
For the things he is applauded for he should be applauded for and remembered. His life holds valuable lessons for everyone. For those things that are not applaud worthy, taking those aspects into focus only serves to dismiss the good parts. No one is perfect in all aspects.
- CathedralBorrow 7y ago
  > His life holds valuable lessons for everyone. Completely agree with this. All of his life holds valuable lessons for everyone. The good and the bad. I don't think it's healthy to treat someone's bad sides as forbidden topics that should not be discussed because the good sides need to be preserved.
  - valarauko 7y ago
    >I don't think it's healthy to treat someone's bad sides as forbidden topics that should not be discussed because the good sides need to be preserved. Except this doesn't happen in isolation. Every has their own agenda and bias. For example with Gandhi, his fiercest critics are among the Right Wing Hindu Supremacists, who see Gandhi as a traitor to his people. They blame Gandhi for allowing the Partition to happen, and agitating to give Pakistan a fair share of resources. They blame him for the death of Bhagat Singh and the other militant nationalists. The criticisms go on. In India, you will rarely find the sort of fair discussion about historic personalities. People strongly identify with these heroes, and to cast any aspersions is tantamount to insulting their cultural identity. Try and have a balanced discussion about Ambedkar, and you'll find yourself in jail for a hatecrime.
raxxorrax 7y ago
I think we currently are in a phase of moral panic again and that always involves finding flaws in others to push off some of the guilt. The more these flaws are contrasted by otherwise noble achievements, the better.

This is hardly recent. I remember hearing this exact conversation about Gandhi at least 25 years ago.

by dagw 7y ago

This is hardly recent. I remember hearing this exact conversation about Gandhi at least 25 years 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.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

rapsey 7y ago

For the things he is applauded for he should be applauded for and remembered. His life holds valuable lessons for everyone. For those things that are not applaud worthy, taking those aspects into focus only serves to dismiss the good parts. No one is perfect in all aspects.

CathedralBorrow 7y ago
> His life holds valuable lessons for everyone. Completely agree with this. All of his life holds valuable lessons for everyone. The good and the bad. I don't think it's healthy to treat someone's bad sides as forbidden topics that should not be discussed because the good sides need to be preserved.
- valarauko 7y ago
  >I don't think it's healthy to treat someone's bad sides as forbidden topics that should not be discussed because the good sides need to be preserved. Except this doesn't happen in isolation. Every has their own agenda and bias. For example with Gandhi, his fiercest critics are among the Right Wing Hindu Supremacists, who see Gandhi as a traitor to his people. They blame Gandhi for allowing the Partition to happen, and agitating to give Pakistan a fair share of resources. They blame him for the death of Bhagat Singh and the other militant nationalists. The criticisms go on. In India, you will rarely find the sort of fair discussion about historic personalities. People strongly identify with these heroes, and to cast any aspersions is tantamount to insulting their cultural identity. Try and have a balanced discussion about Ambedkar, and you'll find yourself in jail for a hatecrime.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I think we currently are in a phase of moral panic again and that always involves finding flaws in others to push off some of the guilt. The more these flaws are contrasted by otherwise noble achievements, the better.