[WaPo] After a petition called Gandhi ‘racist,’ his statue was removed from the University of Ghana

Not looking good for his supreme court nomination either.

 

Mandela knew that Gandhi had racist views against Africans when he first came to South Africa. In fact it was the Africans and their treatment that inspired Gandhi to become what he became. Mandela understood this and wrote about it. It was in 1906 that Gandhi formed a group of Indians to treat the wounded in the Boer War in South Africa:

That was the big turning point for him - where he transformed from an attorney fighting for Indian rights into someone advocating for all rights. I think what I'd say is that Gandhi wasn't perfect, and you can even say he was a racist at points. But then the question becomes, do you judge a man by where he came from or by where he decided to go?

https://thewire.in/history/gandhi-and-africans

 

But but but institutional....but but but white people....orange man bad.

 

Gandhi was a sexual deviant. George Washington paid slaves for their teeth. Mother Theresa

You really don’t get it.

 

You're just stating the obvious. The point is removing his statue for the petty reason of where he came from, an institutionalized thought process, reflects poorly on Africa. That they aren't interested in where he went, and who he influenced. No one who has done anything in this world is born a saint and no one dies a saint, these symbolic tear downs and the left... who salivates over it... is a huge waste of time in a time when we need actual progress.

 

those who were conquered will resemble their invader,that was noted in an observation from the earliest book in sociology.
British were good at excuting "divide to rule or invade". They were also good on creating a culture for their own benefits.

many years ago at a summer job I had to resolve a nagging problem between a guy from Ghana who was the 6'4" Mike Tyson and Joey Doresy in a boxer with two Indians of his co- workers, he was slapping, punching them for being racists!not that he heard them talking a thing towards him but he read their minds, I told him he was absolutely right.

back to Ghandi,not sure those allegations were true or genuine, maybe he had to play along with the British, those who passed away can't defend themselves

 

I'd prefer we not honor anyone with a statue or by naming a building or street or whatever after them.

 

It's pretty difficult to look back on historical figures and not find something seriously wrong with them by 2018 standards. Especially regarding discrimination... pretty much every major historical figure would have been bigoted in some way (race, religion, sexuality, sex .. etc. etc..).

 

He was what he was

Rocket River

 

Great point.
I think people want to be outraged today - it makes them feel better about their own flaws because it makes them feel as if they have a moral high ground over others. Plus, It's easier to get outraged about the half-a-story you see on social media than it is to research the entire story and make an actual educated opinion.

Reminds me of the people who refuse to sing "Amazing Grace" because it was written by the captain of a slave trading ship. Nevermind the fact that thats exactly what the song is about - as the lyrics admit he WAS a wretched person that was saved by Grace. He became a Christian, gave up slave trading and actually funded the abolitionist movement. But to some people only what he did the first half of his life matters..they ignore the 2nd half entirely where he helped end slavery.

 

As a Christian I like the idea of removing statues. God did say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

 

I think statues of historical figures is fine, but we shouldn't deify them. You'd have a statue of Gandhi not because he's a god, but to acknowledge the good things he did in his life that serve as a role model for others. It doesn't mean that he did nothing bad in his life....again he's not a god, but his image is tied to the principle of non violent resistance. A statue doesn't endorse every aspect of a person's life which is something the new puritans on the left seem to have forgotten.

 

It sounds like it makes a lot of sense in Ghana to take it down. It makes a lot of sense for India to have one up. They have the good fortune of being far apart from one another. It's not much like a statue of General Forrest with half the locals calling it heritage and the other half terrorism. It was a gift, apparently, from India so maybe its a bit rude to reject it (perhaps rude to offer it -- should we offer everyone Abe Lincoln statues?), but at least there isn't a big Ghanaian population that will be outraged by removing it.

 

Well, not the Ghanians, Lincoln had some pretty racist views.

 

This is all true, but I think it's naive and historically illiterate to believe any human being was wholly without moral flaws (especially in the context of the present) and ignore any and all criticism that challenges popular myth and narrative. It is equally intellectually dishonest to judge figures in the past that advanced human civilization with some sense of universal progress and dismiss them wholesale for not believing or practicing some other aspect of it that did not yet exist in their own time and culture.

There is an enormous danger to this sort of thing -- one shouldn't forget that the FBI tried to use MLK's very real sexual improprieties to discredit and ultimately blackmail him. One could easily pick up where J. Edgar Hoover left off and use it to discredit his entire discourse of advocacy (particularly for the poor as a whole, for which we are still actively encouraged to ignore by those who would quietly prefer his birthday were not a holiday).

I think there is an important distinction that should be made between being critical of a legacy based on selective memory as the result of advocates with an agenda, and presentism, which is to be revisionist about the legacy of historical figures based on mores of the present day that would be culturally normative in their own time. It's to be historically tone deaf and blind to anachronism in order to virtue signal.

For Washington, there was nothing particularly unusual about his views in his time for an 18th century aristocratic Virginian, and was if anything, more enlightened in the very literal sense of the word than his peers. Most ancient Greek philosophers had little issue with slavery, but we don't toss all of Hellenic philosophy and drama into the bin because of it, nor do we dismiss Aristotle because he believed in a geocentric universe.

In the case of Mother Theresa (who was a late 20th century icon), she was promoted by the Catholic Church and the public narrative was deliberately manicured to elicit sympathy. She was someone who was close to several authoritarian leaders, testified as a character witness to Charles Keating, performed stealth baptisms on the deathbeds of Hindus and Muslim, and even when asked in 1981 at a press conference, "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." There is cause to question her entire legacy and motivation, and at the very least her canonization as a saint.

Mahatma Gandhi, I think is somewhere in the middle - a flawed person, but regardless of his cult in his own time, he's still the father of the modern Indian state, a defender of civil rights in a time and place for which his empathy was ridiculed by those in power (in SA and India), defeated an empire with his advocacy of non-violence and religious pluralism and is emulated by many for the right reasons, and ultimately was martyred by a Hindu nationalist. Yet, there is no doubt that his own odd interpretation of brahmacharya, equally pervy and repressed and puritanical, was not a good influence on India and its effects are still being felt in the way women are treated in that country. That aspect of his life is fair game to criticize for sure, and should, but it is not sufficient reason to support tearing down his statues.

 

No surprise here...you’d have to be living under a rock not to know Ghandi was a racist.

 

It’s ironic that a lot of non-African people won’t apply this level of analysis when referring to African people (not you specifically just making an observation. )

 

He had the whole pedo thing going for him also

 

"But you know [insert any post-colonial African leader here] was a communist, right?" continues to be a problem.

 

I agree with this so much that I propose tomorrow be the first-ever JuanValdez Day here at Clutchfans!