Does Mahatma Gandhi deserve respect or ridicule?

[TomThumb]

Discuss

EDIT: I should clarify that I believe the man deserves respect. Total respect.

[JillSwift]

[strike:5ll54cb9]Why not offer your views, hmm?[/strike:5ll54cb9]

Mohandas Gandhi was like all humans, had good and bad things going on. His method for freeing his country was brilliant. His racism and abuse of his nieces was disgusting.

[Davin]

It was a brilliant way to fight oppression.

[pinkocommie]

Disclaimer - I don't know much about Gandhi.    

Both.  He obviously deserves respect for all of the good things he did for India and the world, but he also deserves ridicule for being totally racist.  His racism was a product of his environment and when he grew up, which makes it more understandable but not entirely excusable.  Gandhi is a great example of why I think blind hero worship is a bad, ultimately disappointing thing.  Everyone has aspects of themselves - things they've done or ways they think - that are worth ridicule.  No one is above reproach or below the capability to be heroic.

[dogsmycopilot]

Discuss

EDIT: I should clarify that I believe the man deserves respect. Total respect.

Total Ridicule. Essay I wrote: http://mwillett.org/Politics/Gandhi.htm for which I did a great amount of research. Gandhi was a deplorable person with only self centered ethics. What he supposedly did for India is a joke, he set India back decades.

[dogsmycopilot]

Disclaimer - I don't know much about Gandhi.    

Which is why you think he deserves respect. Read him yourself. He admits his racism and anti-female nature in his own works.

[pinkocommie]

Disclaimer - I don't know much about Gandhi.    

Which is why you think he deserves respect. Read him yourself. He admits his racism and anti-female nature in his own works.

I don't think a person being a product of their time and culture cancels out all of the good things they did.  My grandpa was a typical non violent southern racist, but he also helped develop a lot of great programs for the blind community in his area.  I think it would be short sighted of anyone to claim that he should only be judged on his shortcomings rather than considered for everything he's done - which was more good than bad.  My grandpa deserved respect for what he did for blind people, but not for how he regarded black people.  No one is 100% good or bad.

I already knew he was racist and sexist - he was a product of his time and culture.  Does that mean he shouldn't be respected for the good he did?  I don't think so.  Does the good he did mean he shouldn't be ridiculed for his faults?  I don't think that either.  That's why I said both.  

[dogsmycopilot]

Does that mean he shouldn't be respected for the good he did?  I don't think so.  Does the good he did mean he shouldn't be ridiculed for his faults?  I don't think that either.  That's why I said both.  

But he didn't do the good you are claiming he did. It's a false claim based on stuff you heard about him. That's why I suggested you read up on him. Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

[pinkocommie]

Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

 That seems like an unwarranted rude comment.

[dogsmycopilot]

Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

:eek: Personally, I consider it rude to have an opinion on someone when you admit you know little about him.

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a bitch too. That's a sacred cow that needs slaughtering.

[pinkocommie]

Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

:eek:

Oh, and Mother Teresa was a bitch too. That's a sacred cow that needs slaughtering.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[dogsmycopilot]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

I believe it is: "He obviously deserves respect for all of the good things he did for India..."


I think what you are choosing to think is pretty clear and pretty false. You assume he did something positive for India- which he didn't- and that he should be respected for that imaginary deed and we should cut him some slack and remember what the culture was like when we criticize him.  

Your number one issue seems to be that you have an opinion on something you know little about. How do we respect someone for something imaginary?

But none of that addresses the fact that at some point bad people should not be respected at all. Hence the question exactly how much shit do you let in the wine?

For goodness sakes if you don't believe me go read what the Indians say about him, but don't keep defending someone with false information. Hell, get his son's bio, even. You'll learn anything he claimed to be doing for India was for him. He set India back in its aims because his loyalty was to the British Empire first, not to India. And the Indians don't even use his principles, he is revered, but not followed.

[pinkocommie]

You're obviously looking for a fight and I'm not interested.  I don't care.  If I misspoke, then I misspoke.  I even stated that I didn't know a lot about Ghandi, I never said I cared to know more.  My point to the OP was that no one deserves 100% respect or ridicule.  Sorry, but I don't want to argue with you about this, especially when you seem so desperate for an argument that you're willing to make strawmen out of what I'm saying.  

[Davin]

Exactly how much shit do you allow in the wine before you stop drinking it?

Nope, I don't like this statement at all. I respect things George Washington did and things he said, but there are things he did and said that I don't agree with. So in using your example I can separate the shit from the wine. While I agree that Gandhi wasn't a very good man, it doesn't mean that everything he did was bad, his example for fighting oppression by letting the oppressors be aggressive on people not doing anything wrong was genius and still works. If we couldn't separate the shit from the wine, no one would drink any wine because there's always shit. Because any person other than you (sometimes even you), will do something that you don't agree with.

[dogsmycopilot]

You're obviously looking for a fight and I'm not interested.  I don't care.  If I misspoke, then I misspoke.  I even stated that I didn't know a lot about Ghandi, I never said I cared to know more.  My point to the OP was that no one deserves 100% respect or ridicule.  Sorry, but I don't want to argue with you about this, especially when you seem so desperate for an argument that you're willing to make strawmen out of what I'm saying.  

Desperate for an argument? On a forum where the topic at hand is the one I'm referring to? Boy, that's a new copout for me, I haven't heard that one before.

There is no strawman here. I was perfectly willing to discuss both your willingness to accept a bit of shit in the wine or the topic of Gandhi, either one was fine. Now, I have to wonder what the point of being on a discussion forum is if you don't wish to discuss? Why respond at all?

Oh, and for the benefit of future newcomers you should realize text does not show tone of voice. "Looking for a fight" is not something you should assume about people who are writing on a discussion forum.

Geez, passive-aggressive much?

his example for fighting oppression by letting the oppressors be aggressive on people not doing anything wrong was genius and still works.

*facepalm* So even atheists believe in the imaginary. It wasn't genius and it never worked. The British Empire fell, Johnson signed the civil rights laws- no matter the non-violent crusader you discuss their actions are not the cause of success. Non violent passivity does not work and is nothing to be commended.