Posted on 03/25/2005 9:24:33 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy
Gandhi’s desire for Indians to be segregated from blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city
LAHORE: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1870-1948), the man who inspired great leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, may have harboured racial sentiments against black people if an article on Sulekha.com is to be believed.
The article quotes a series of letters and petitions from Gandhi, linking the black people of Africa to savages and portraying them as little better than animals. Gandhi writes, “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir”.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailytimes.com.pk ...
Thank you.
And i don't blame them for being insulted with the name-calling.
I wasn't really thinking Indian folks, though.
Mostly I was refering to the sort of Leftist we have here: Upper Middle, relatively priveleged, and who consider themselves "elite".
Disagree with some of the ones in Ann Arbor and it gets very nasty, very fast.
Your name wouldn't happen to be Gordon, would it?
What I do fail to see is anything that would remotely indicate that you have any authority here to tell other posters what to do.
What was your name before?
We have a new poster who is making threats and seems to want your job.
Bye, it's been fun.
I would not have called but that "I insist you apologize or be prepared for the consequences" struck me as a little ominous.
If Gandhi is a hero or a villain to you, this matters a lot. If he's just another figure out of history without any especial claim to sainthood and villainy, it doesn't make much of an impression.
It's not so much what Gandhi believed that makes him valuable, but the tactics he used. People have come to disregard his ideas about meat and sex and revile his blindness to Hitler's evil, and still recognize the value of non-violence and civil disobedience.
Was Gandhi really a leftist? He was a leftist in his opposition to empire, and became a hero to many liberals, but was he really a leftist/socialist at heart, or a throwback to older peasant/agrarian/religious ideas? Was Gandhi primarily a politician and ideologue, like Nehru and his descendants, or a religious and prophetic figure?
<< It's not so much what Gandhi believed that makes him valuable as the tactics he used.
[Many may] have come to disregard his [Practices] about meat and [Paedophile] sex and revile his [Hesperophobic-empathy with] Hitler's evil -- and still recognize the value of non-violence and civil disobedience. >>
The "value of [Ghandi's] non-violence and civil disobedience" is that of and by itself it had and has no value. After all, since Ghandi's demise, countless scores of millions have been put to death whose only crime was to have placed "value" on and/or to seek eficacy from "Ghandi's" delusional fantasies vis-à-vis "non-violence and civil disobedience."
[Tienanmen, anyone?]
What it did -- and all it did -- was to highlight the unwavering and unassailable essential morality of the Judeo-Christian/Roman/English Law by which the British governed.
And under which [To India's lasting sorrow!] they so gracefully withdrew.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"He who reigns within himself and rules his passions, desires, and fears is more than a king."
--John Milton
very interesting points especially with respect to China... it had no effect on the Chinese government whatsoever.
Well of course Ghandi was racist. To an extent we all are.
In every one of the globe's Gulag's graveyards gather the ghastly ghosts of those once given to glomming on to Ghandi's absurdly-grandiose exaggerations.
An ugly old nose-on-a-stick buggar whose unearned and undeserved notoriety helped him pull a few dewy chicks -- and get away with it. Think Pete Townshend sans talent sans guitar.
Gandhi used 'Passive resistance', an old leftist, communist tactic against the British because it worked against them. But when turned around, Passive Resistance has never worked against Communist regimes.
hmmm...
It's a question of who you are trying to convince. Non-violence can work in free or democratic societies. It did in the US in the 1950s and 1960s. The philosophy of non-violence pretty clearly isn't going to bring results in all cases, but in some instances the tactic of nonviolence has been a striking success. It's not universally applicable, but would have been better if Indians had fought in a military or terrorist faction, rather than organized non-violently?
There's a Michael Jackson joke in there somewhere!
A link from a Paki paper accusing an Indian leader of something. Why am I not surprised? For the same reason I don't believe a single word....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.