3 ms·

Wow, that was... crazy. A slightly less frothing at the mouth response: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451bdbfbefb61 http://groups.g

by ezy 16y ago

Wow, that was... crazy. A slightly less frothing at the mouth response: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451bdbfbefb61 http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian/msg/38b451... The OP article had me going, because it was partially correct about the film being a hagiography. But it went quickly into looney-land about half way through. If you look up the author and his other writings, you'll realize why.

gnosis 16y ago
"The strongest words, however, have come from Richard Grenier, film critic for 'Commentary'. Not satisfied with simply attacking the movie and the man, Grenier in a March article for the magazine went on to vilify all of India, all of Hinduism, and then to flail at a target closer to home, and close to the hearts of his fellow neoconservatives: American liberals. Grenier's 13,000-word tirade was widely reprinted and subsequently released as a book dedicated to Norman Podhoretz and Midge Deeter." No wonder.
bdhe 16y ago
> The OP article had me going, because it was partially correct about the film being a hagiography. I think the idea and principles that Gandhi stood for are nevertheless important just as the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers of the US had in mind when framing the constitution are considered important. The details of Gandhi's life are slightly less important. Also, people fail to realize the context behind a lot of Gandhi's misgivings. It was a different era (which is no excuse) but even Abraham Lincoln wasn't of the opinion that blacks are equals and the Founding Fathers owned slaves themselves. The lesson is to take their stories with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless feel motivated and inspired by the goals and ideals these famous people represented, not the minutiae of their actual lives.
- pstack 16y ago
  I think the more valuable lesson is that you don't need to white-wash history to paint a figure as better than they were (especially if they were not particularly good at all in some cases), simply to uphold the value of the things we associate with them. Society doesn't have to confuse the two. A worthy idea or concept can stand on its own, even if we uncover unpleasant truths about the people involved.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    I agree with this, and have for a long time, but I also think that human society is still evolving, and that evolution has until recently precluded that kind of behavior. Great causes have been championed by heroes, moreso than on the merits of the causes themselves. Heroes are people we can identify with, and reflect a kind of perfection that most people look up to. I think this is starting to change, thanks in part to the communication age, which is not only stripping the white-wash from our heroes but also making them gradually less necessary.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by ezy 16y ago

gnosis 16y ago

"The strongest words, however, have come from Richard Grenier, film critic for 'Commentary'. Not satisfied with simply attacking the movie and the man, Grenier in a March article for the magazine went on to vilify all of India, all of Hinduism, and then to flail at a target closer to home, and close to the hearts of his fellow neoconservatives: American liberals. Grenier's 13,000-word tirade was widely reprinted and subsequently released as a book dedicated to Norman Podhoretz and Midge Deeter." No wonder.

bdhe 16y ago

> The OP article had me going, because it was partially correct about the film being a hagiography. I think the idea and principles that Gandhi stood for are nevertheless important just as the ideas and principles the Founding Fathers of the US had in mind when framing the constitution are considered important. The details of Gandhi's life are slightly less important. Also, people fail to realize the context behind a lot of Gandhi's misgivings. It was a different era (which is no excuse) but even Abraham Lincoln wasn't of the opinion that blacks are equals and the Founding Fathers owned slaves themselves. The lesson is to take their stories with a pinch of salt, but nevertheless feel motivated and inspired by the goals and ideals these famous people represented, not the minutiae of their actual lives.

pstack 16y ago
I think the more valuable lesson is that you don't need to white-wash history to paint a figure as better than they were (especially if they were not particularly good at all in some cases), simply to uphold the value of the things we associate with them. Society doesn't have to confuse the two. A worthy idea or concept can stand on its own, even if we uncover unpleasant truths about the people involved.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  I agree with this, and have for a long time, but I also think that human society is still evolving, and that evolution has until recently precluded that kind of behavior. Great causes have been championed by heroes, moreso than on the merits of the causes themselves. Heroes are people we can identify with, and reflect a kind of perfection that most people look up to. I think this is starting to change, thanks in part to the communication age, which is not only stripping the white-wash from our heroes but also making them gradually less necessary.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]