Does Mahatma Gandhi deserve respect or ridicule?

[philosoraptor]

~ MOTHER TERESA!?! I'm sorry, but if you think Mother Teresa was a bitch, I'm not even going to argue with you.  You're either a major dick, or an ignorant moron. (Probably both...)

There is a far more compelling argument to be made that M.T. was a pretty rotten human than Ghandi.  But, if we want to do that dance, a new thread would be best.  However, I don't think it's fair to say that dogsmycopilot is a major dick or an ignorant moron because she questions the common perceptions of either Ghandi or M.T.  I don't know if I'd call M.T. a bitch, but I've read enough about her to not have a terribly high opinion of the woman, personally.

This.  Penn and Teller actually did a really good episode of Bullshit, outlining some of the shady and deplorable things MT did in her so-called charity work.

As for Ghandi, he came up a lot in many of my philosophy classes.  Nothing I've personally read about him would indicate he's the fraud dogismycopilot is claiming him to be, but I'm not comfortable making an assertion either way without looking into it more.  However I will say this:

1.) Writing an article or paper does not make one an expert on a given topic.  Informed, perhaps, but not an expert.
2.) I personally have a hard time taking someone seriously if they're being rude and antagonistic.  You may speak the truth, but if you're being an ass about it, people aren't going to be able to see past that.

[Cecilie]

This.  Penn and Teller actually did a really good episode of Bullshit, outlining some of the shady and deplorable things MT did in her so-called charity work.

Great episode, everybody should watch it.

[KebertX]

I just gained a lot of respect for this Forum.  You don't let people get away with illogical arguments!  "Major Dick or Ignorant Moron,"  was a pretty bad thing to say on my part. So I am officially retracting that, because people who use Ad Hominem attacks are all Major Dicks and Ignorant Morons... wait!  So, I'm sorry to anyone who I insulted with my illogical arguments, let me start over.

~

I actually read the essay dogsmycopilot put up.

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.

I have to say, it's rather weak, and it takes a lot of things way out of context.

It says he was a proponent of the caste system, because he was born into the highest cast, but really, he was one of the formost critics of the caste system. He helped established rights for the Dalits, as equal to the Brahmins.  Furthermore, the caste system was legally abolished in the late 40's, when the constitution was remodeled: Something that would not have happened if not for Gandhi.

He was not an Imperialist, that is an obvious and direct contradiction of the impact he had on India.  He was not in favor of the British actions during the Zulu uprising.  Gandhi condemned the Imperialist actions against the Zulu uprising as a man hunt.  He said the Indian People in South Africa would do best not to obstruct the British Army, because he knew that could only result in more death.  He was a Pacifist, his mentality was not one that condoned fighting.

You construed this quote, “Let them take possession of your beautiful island with all your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls nor your minds.”  as Gandhi favoring the Nazis taking over the British.  Once again, he believed in taking a passive approach, and avoiding war.  This is very wise in many situations, but obviously not a bit of conventional wisdom that applied to WWII.  None the less, Gandhi strongly believed in nonviolence, that's what his experiences told him was right.  This means only that he was a bad military strategist, not at all a bad person.

He wasn't oppressing his son when he told him not to go to college.  He didn't want to endorse the British Education system.  It was a part of a larger cause, he was able to look past the desires of individuals close to him, in order to help the entire nation.  This was what he cared about, because he had post conventional morality.  "The boy was so uncared for no one came to his bedside as he lay dying." Really? Gandhi was in prison when his son died!  Your essay looks past this, and therefore ignores the bigger picture of what he has done.

It portrays Gandhi as a man against sexual freedom, when really, he was just against recreational sex because he felt people should overcome their baser animal urges.  He was a celibate man, who believed people should only have sex to have children (He had 4 kids).  This wasn't a desire to oppress people, but a belief that people should be in control of their primitive instincts.  Celibacy is not immoral, it's a test of your will, and although an Atheist view is against celibacy, it doesn't mean Gandhi was a bad person for having spiritual practices that you find strange.

He was against Birth Control?  Well I've never heard that, but the good people at GodSpy (You referenced them in your bibliography) make a convincing point. http://oldarchive.godspy.com/life/Gandh ... z.cfm.html  So he wasn't the most progressive guy, I'll give you that, but once again, he wasn't against Birth Control, and Homosexuality, because he thought people should be denied civil rights and liberties, he was just against recreational sex.  He never tried to force his spiritual practices onto anyone, he just made very clear how he believed the world should behave.

Gandhi was an exceptional Human Being.  He did great things for the people of India, and no one who knows his history could possibly contest that.
~

So how's that?  Have I made up for my unforgivable Ad Hominem?

[The Black Jester]

I read that completely wrong and apologize for doing so.  

[Ned]

The answer to the question posed by the OP is ridicule, as Gandhi did absolutely nothing to earn respect.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Gandhi, like, you, me, or Donald Trump, had skidmarks in his drawers.  He had good ideas, and serious failings.

[dogsmycopilot]

He was not an Imperialist, that is an obvious and direct contradiction of the impact he had on India.  He was not in favor of the British actions during the Zulu uprising.  Gandhi condemned the Imperialist actions against the Zulu uprising as a man hunt.  He said the Indian People in South Africa would do best not to obstruct the British Army, because he knew that could only result in more death.  He was a Pacifist, his mentality was not one that condoned fighting.  

Yeah, he was against birth control (no reason to capitalize that) in my book that alone makes one a bad person worthy  of condemnation. I don't think you have read much of Gandhi's own words. You have clearly applied your own wishful spin, but this was the most egregious statement. He was so not against the British he was a decorated war hero. He didn't just not obstruct the British he actively fought to uphold their bullshit. But you keep right own following the authoritarian line. Don't read any of his material or his son's biography or address why he refused those meds to his wife. No, just keep insisting that anyone with a view other than yours is "taking things out of context." You know that's the fun part about Gandhi, he was so very screwed up I didn't have to make a damn thing up or take it out of context. But I have tried to debate one like you already. You were more creative than he was with the ad hominem, but funny how that's you people's first reaction.