Gandhi Was Racist Towards Blacks

[Ifreann]

OP, give me a source. How would Martin Luther King Jr. be inspired if he was racist?

Why wouldn't King be inspired by the leader of a successful pacifist movement, even if he was racist? Hitler ate sugar, that hasn't stopped anyone from using it.

[Distruzio]

This is why I have no use for the man. His racism does not offend me.

[Ifreann]

This is why I have no use for the man. His racism does not offend me.

Seems like everyone's an economist these days.

[Katganistan]

Really? I have no idea why it would be that he would be more interested in the problems of Indians over the problems of South African blacks.

[AiliailiA]

OP, give me a source. How would Martin Luther King Jr. be inspired if he was racist?

Why wouldn't King be inspired by the leader of a successful pacifist movement, even if he was racist? Hitler ate sugar, that hasn't stopped anyone from using it.

Why should Hitler be judged for his somewhat kooky racial attitude, given that he was such a bad leader of that pirate movement you mentioned? Failure is a great way to make history!

This is why I have no use for the man. His racism does not offend me.

I see nothing harmful in that. I wouldn't expect it to work, but what's the skin off your own nose?

[AiliailiA]

This is why I have no use for the man. His racism does not offend me.

Seems like everyone's an economist these days.

Well yeah. "Economics" is a major component of the news, and a major political issue at elections. Economists (unlike sociologists and psychologists ... or even statisticians and engineers) have inserted their science into the political discourse.

Or perhaps it's that economics was a political subject from its very conception.

[Distruzio]

This is why I have no use for the man. His racism does not offend me.

I see nothing harmful in that. I wouldn't expect it to work, but what's the skin off your own nose?

Meh... he wasn't advocating it for my neck of the woods. So I suppose you have a good point there. It's just that when someone begins to express collectivist ideologies (racism included) I tend to stop caring about what they have to say.

[Oterro]

Really? I have no idea why it would be that he would be more interested in the problems of Indians over the problems of South African blacks.

no he was more interested in creating a state similar to apartheid south africa where poor Indians wouldn't suffer the indignity of being treated like blacks

Honestly it's so hard to find a hero you can revere in history now :<

[AiliailiA]

I see nothing harmful in that. I wouldn't expect it to work, but what's the skin off your own nose?

Meh... he wasn't advocating it for my neck of the woods. So I suppose you have a good point there. It's just that when someone begins to express collectivist ideologies (racism included) I tend to stop caring about what they have to say.

Racism is the worst kind of "collectivist ideology" so I can agree that far. Gandhi was damn wrong about that.

[Distruzio]

Meh... he wasn't advocating it for my neck of the woods. So I suppose you have a good point there. It's just that when someone begins to express collectivist ideologies (racism included) I tend to stop caring about what they have to say.

Racism is the worst kind of "collectivist ideology" so I can agree that far. Gandhi was damn wrong about that.

Well, for me it isn't the discriminatory aspect of racism, but the collectivist anti-individualist aspect of it. The desire to view anyone of a particular race as inferior in full intentional ignorance of the individual you deal with is offensive to me. That is why I'm no friend of racists. I fully support their right to discriminate, hell, I discriminate (not based on race) sometimes. I just can't jive with the whole "he doesn't exist... he's one of them" thing.

[AiliailiA]

Really? I have no idea why it would be that he would be more interested in the problems of Indians over the problems of South African blacks.

no he was more interested in creating a state similar to apartheid south africa where poor Indians wouldn't suffer the indignity of being treated like blacks

There was a state similar to apartheid in India, from long before Gandhi was born: the caste system.

Let's look at his attitude to that instead of his (pro-Indian) attitude to the system of South Africa where he had very little influence.

[Knowlandia]

Oh, people from the past were racist? I wouldn't have guessed.

Calm down OP, the good things he did far outweighed his uses of a racial slur.

[Potarius]

Really? I have no idea why it would be that he would be more interested in the problems of Indians over the problems of South African blacks.

I think it has a wee bit more to do with his rather crude comments about blacks in general (consistently referring to them as "Kaffirs") than his greater interest in Indian issues.

[Jerusalem and Damascus]

Nobody's perfect. Sir francis drake was a pirate, churchill was a drunk who allowed the use of poisonous gas against the kurds amd african tribes, thomas jefferson was a slave owner.

Actually, Churchill was advocating tear gas. He was going for less severe methods, not more.

[AiliailiA]

Racism is the worst kind of "collectivist ideology" so I can agree that far. Gandhi was damn wrong about that.

Well, for me it isn't the discriminatory aspect of racism, but the collectivist anti-individualist aspect of it. The desire to view anyone of a particular race as inferior in full intentional ignorance of the individual you deal with is offensive to me. That is why I'm no friend of racists. I fully support their right to discriminate, hell, I discriminate (not based on race) sometimes. I just can't jive with the whole "he doesn't exist... he's one of them" thing.

What is so offensive to me about that particular kind of collectivism is: the individual cannot change their race. They're born with it and die with it. A racist system (of government or society, I think you may agree that there would be something like "a system" even in the absence of any State anywhere) ... a racist system is most inimical because it disadvantages children from birth and because "race" is hereditary, that disadvantage accumulates across generations. Even quite mild racial discrimination, if it applies for a century or two, will produce very disparate opportunities for the notional "average" child of one race or another.

It's worth noting that the caste system is "racist" in just that sense: the different castes are not seen as different races, but the primary determinant of what caste a child belongs to is who their parents were.

Now here is a puzzler: is gender a "collectivist ideology" ?

[Wazkyraque]

...And?
I knew this.
It effected my opinion of him to the degree of none.

[Ashmoria]

Gandhi was a RACIST!

oddly enough no one is born enlightened and perfect right out of the box. people start in one place and end in another.

go figure.

if you expect ANY hero to be perfect throughout his life (or at any time in his life) you will always be sadly disappointed.

[Distruzio]

It's worth noting that the caste system is "racist" in just that sense: the different castes are not seen as different races, but the primary determinant of what caste a child belongs to is who their parents were.

Indeed!

Now here is a puzzler: is gender a "collectivist ideology" ?

I think it tends to be when that the only qualifier you need to incorporate someone into the ideal.

[Hyesteriec Possessions Under Iceland]

Gandhi was a racist!

You say it as if everyone else wasn't.

[Keronians]

Your point?

He is still a hero for Indians, and is, as such, respected as the Father of India.

I admire the man, but recognise his imperfections. The good he did far outweighed the bad, which was only in the form of statements.

As for your claim about Gandhi being buddy buddy with fascists, the only thing he said about Hitler and Mussolini is that he preferred them over the Allies (which, back then, consisted solely of Britain).

Can't see how that doesn't make sense.

[Ashmoria]

Gandhi was a racist!

You say it as if everyone else wasn't.

*mind reels*

are you saying that there were other racists in 1900??

[Bears Armed]

It's worth noting that the caste system is "racist" in just that sense: the different castes are not seen as different races, but the primary determinant of what caste a child belongs to is who their parents were.

Actually, I read somewhere or other a while back, the Sanskrit term for the four basic castes apparently translates into English as "Colours": Apparently members of the higher castes tend to be paler-skinned than members of the lower ones, at least amongst the peoples of northern India, and the system probably started off there with caste determined in some way by the extent to which people were 'Indo-Aryan' in ancestry rather than descended from any of the the earlier (e.g. Dravidian, Munda, pre-Dravidian, etc...) native groups.

[West Failure]

It's worth noting that the caste system is "racist" in just that sense: the different castes are not seen as different races, but the primary determinant of what caste a child belongs to is who their parents were.

Actually, I read somewhere or other a while back, the Sanskrit term for the four basic castes apparently translates into English as "Colours": Apparently members of the higher castes tend to be paler-skinned than members of the lower ones, at least amongst the peoples of northern India, and the system probably started off there with caste determined in some way by the extent to which people were 'Indo-Aryan' in ancestry rather than descended from any of the the earlier (e.g. Dravidian, Munda, pre-Dravidian, etc...) native groups.

They seem far more related to occupation to me.

[Oterro]

Gandhi was a racist!

You say it as if everyone else wasn't.

You say that as if every human being under the sun before the 1950's was racist.

[Keronians]

Actually, I read somewhere or other a while back, the Sanskrit term for the four basic castes apparently translates into English as "Colours": Apparently members of the higher castes tend to be paler-skinned than members of the lower ones, at least amongst the peoples of northern India, and the system probably started off there with caste determined in some way by the extent to which people were 'Indo-Aryan' in ancestry rather than descended from any of the the earlier (e.g. Dravidian, Munda, pre-Dravidian, etc...) native groups.

They seem far more related to occupation to me.

They are. What determined your caste was what your family did for a living. Key word: family. Not you.

The only way you could ascend in caste was if you became a minister of the Emperor, or the Emperor himself.

But Indian society, even today, is quite racist. A dark woman will find no husband. It's much less pronounced in men, but among women, the colour of your skin is extremely important. Or, at least, used to be. It's declining with the current generation. But even with my father's generation, that racism was extremely strong.