Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
You know, you're right. I mean Hitler didn't smoke and was a vegetarian (I think) but he did stuff that probably wasn't a very good idea. What's important is the good parts, not the bad.
Happy Birthday, Mohandas Gandhi!
- Thread starter Phlegmak
- Start date
You know, you're right. I mean Hitler didn't smoke and was a vegetarian (I think) but he did stuff that probably wasn't a very good idea. What's important is the good parts, not the bad.
There's a huge difference between saying "the good far outweighs the bad" and "only the good parts matter"
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
I'm sorry, that just made me chuckle a little...
Yeah, the sum of the person is usually more important than the details...
In this case, Gandhi isn't quite Hitler, is he? As far as Hitler is concerned, it can be easily stated that the bad things he did far outweigh any good he may have done.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
the pioneering of ahimsa, satyagraha, and what he did for the Indian nation far outweighs any stock racist notions that he may have held
Trajan12
Deity
I'm not talking about his achievements. But if the man was racist, how can we remember him as some kind, caring, freedom and liberty loving, person? How can we not be sure there weren't other groups that got the cold shoulder?
It would be different if he were a president or a general or something. But he was a person whose philosophy is supposed to be centered on love and kindness and the like, so if he holds views like that, then his input on the subject is irrelevant as it would be inconsistent.
It would be different if he were a president or a general or something. But he was a person whose philosophy is supposed to be centered on love and kindness and the like, so if he holds views like that, then his input on the subject is irrelevant as it would be inconsistent.
Swedishguy
Deity
Grattis på födelsedagen, "Great Soul"!
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Well, he wan't exactly a 'president', but he was a statesman of sorts, does that count? I mean, you could go to town on the american founding fathers for owning slaves when they professed freedom, or on Martin Luther King Jr. for plagiarizing sections of his doctoral degree, but in the end, isn't the sum of what they achieved more important?
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
Happy Gandhi Vagina Day!!!!
As far as my friends are concerned he's a bloody traitor who is responsible for the existence of Pakistan. Or something like that....
I always thought that he was a sex maniac, I heard that he had two women with him on both sides and such things. That actually increases my respect for him though.
My family hates Gandhi though at least on my dad's side. My uncle says that he named his toilet M.k. Gandhi....
In conclusion I think Gandhi had a foolishly idealistic philosophy that served to weaken India in the long run even though he did get immediate results. So yeh.
As far as my friends are concerned he's a bloody traitor who is responsible for the existence of Pakistan. Or something like that....
I always thought that he was a sex maniac, I heard that he had two women with him on both sides and such things. That actually increases my respect for him though.
My family hates Gandhi though at least on my dad's side. My uncle says that he named his toilet M.k. Gandhi....
In conclusion I think Gandhi had a foolishly idealistic philosophy that served to weaken India in the long run even though he did get immediate results. So yeh.
Why do they hate Gandhi? Because of the existance of Pakistan? How is the existance of Pakistan Gandhi's fault? I didn't think he wanted it to exist.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
They said that apparently Gandhi never did or said anything about Pakistan to prevent Partition, and that Gandhi supported Pakistanis more than Indians or something like that.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Gandhi often said publicly that he would be torn into two before allowing a partition of India into hindu and muslim states, but he did allow for the possibility by trying to bring together both groups into a provisional government, then put the partition to a plebistice. In the end, I lebeive the partition happened when violence broke out the the spectre of a full out civil war was apon the indian subcontinent.
But I'm hardly an expert...
aneeshm
Deity
He was the one who completely opposed it. But nobody listened to him.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
Happy Birthday to the OG.
He kicked ass.
He kicked ass.
druidravi
King
Well I wouldn't want to be his friend or family member or anyone near him. However I do like him as a leader . He had huge conviction of his beliefs which he carry an whole country with. His absolute senses of right and wrong made him narrow-minded , however as a leader he was one of the best as he had some ideals he formed and tried to adhere to them .
A whole class different from the present crop of selfish politicans whose values and morals change to what is politically most benificial for them . An idealist and flawed individual who however could bring up on a near bloodless independence for the whole sub-continent India + Pakistan and others. His ahimsa and non-violence way of protesting to shame his opponents is his legacy left behind which are still being used in oppressed states like Burma , Tibet etc .
A whole class different from the present crop of selfish politicans whose values and morals change to what is politically most benificial for them . An idealist and flawed individual who however could bring up on a near bloodless independence for the whole sub-continent India + Pakistan and others. His ahimsa and non-violence way of protesting to shame his opponents is his legacy left behind which are still being used in oppressed states like Burma , Tibet etc .
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Trajan12
Deity
I'm not saying what they achieved is important. sigh...
What I'm saying is that in our remembrance of these people, it should be duly noted that because they held such contradictory views: Ghandi cannot possibly be the champion of peace and equality people would like to claim, founding fathers are not the freedom lovers that people like to claim they are.
So why would people remember them as such when this is just not true?
And my reference to it being different if he was a different person: If this were Ceasar or Napoleon who held his views on blacks or whatever, it would be insignificant. Because these people were not missionaries, they did not come to bring cooperation and equality among all mankind. They came to rule and conquer.
Ghandi on the other hand, is proclaimed as all those things I mentioned. When it's just not true.
Because otherwise, we would have no one to admire.
amadeus
Serenity now
And it was good.
