And what's become of Pakistan? A gem amongst filth?Is that what you're trying to imply?
(Sometimes I reply like an idiot, apologies for my earlier nonsensical reply).
That was a fantastic article. It was very informative and very relevant given the attitudes of the left in this country.
"What's so great about America," by Dinesh D'Sousa quotes one of D'Sousa's highschool teachers for perspective on India's struggle for independence: "If Hitler had ruled India, Gandhi would be a lampshade."
Just today, in my Civ 3 game, the Gandhi double-crossed me, and launched sneak attack when he was supposed to be allied with me against the French. But I showed that bastard not to mess with the Might Aztecs. HA! And him and his Frog friends learned the taste of Aztec Uranium!
Loose jobs?
Next week, on U-62, he's back! And this time, he's mad.
Gandhi II!
No more Mr. Passive Resistance. He's out to kick some butt.
This is one bad mother you don't want to mess with.
"Don't move, slimeball."
He's a one-man wrecking crew. But he also knows how to party.
"Gimme a stake, medium rare."
"Hey! Baldy!"
There is only one law--his law.
Gandhi II!
Ghandi's idea of passive resistance was sometimes to offer yourself up to be shot rather than being dragged away to the same result.
As far as Jews went, he realized they would be killed by Hitler or Arabs anyway, so he offered this suggestion: stand up and volunteer to be killed or punished, and the Jews would have "world opinion" behind them (dream on, Ghandi, we're talking about Jews here). Unfortunately for the Jews, if they followed that advice they would all be dead; half by Hitler, and the other half by Arabs.
Ghandi, of course, would never have termed this suggestion as mass suicide, as it would be immoral, but the result would be the same.
He claimed that voluntary suffering would bring more joy in the end than pain, but what did Ghandi really know of that kind of suffering? He wasn’t up against a Hitler or an Arab nation. He was intellectually wrangling with the reasonable and tired British. For 32 years, I might add! The fact is, the British made many improvements to the infrastructure of India, none of which the natives wouldn’t accomplished on their own.
Another contradiction in the familiar Ghandi profile is evidenced in one of his letters that if ANY justification for war could be had, it was against Hitler. But, he also says in the same breath, war is never acceptable. Um, just to make things clear, I guess.
Ghandi in fact was a war hero himself, hence his initial popularity. Regardless of his later teachings, he did in fact know there's a time to - if not accept war - join one. He didn’t consider war to be as immoral as cowardice.
So, the typically pacifist Ghandi profile is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. You’ll never be able to convince a pacifist that Ghandi wasn’t the saint he was made out to be.
Excellent point. Non-violence only works when your opponent has a conscience.
Excellent article. But for God's sake, isn't there anyone left on FR who knows the difference between "loose" and "lose"?
When are people going to realize that this kind of error detracts from their over all message. Spelling counts, and when an author makes an error like this, it discredits the author and therefore the legitimacy of his article.
For the record: L-O-S-E is what heppens when you once had something and no longer do. L-O-O-S-E is what your belt becomes after you L-O-S-E a few pounds.
Please try to be better.
But great article, just the same.
Three points:
My grandfather (who sadly died before I was born) guarded Gandhi. According to my mother my grandfather developed enormous respect for him - the scenes in the Attenborough film showing Gandhi's solicitousness to the squaddies guarding him (a 14 year old Irish immigrant runaway in my grandfather's case) are authentic.
Agree with him or not, Gandhi's response to the question "what do you think about British civilisation" from the adoring press during his 30s visit to london was a classic: "it would be a good idea".
Bose.