Ghandi's 7 blunders

[BenW]

Considering your argument was....

"I think Gandhi's biggest blunder was his rampant racist agenda."

I think I've made a pretty substantial case to indicate otherwise.

Convince me that he denounced the caste system, and I'd agree.
You seem to be sure of it, I'd like to know why.

Standing up for the voting rights of these people is not the same as removing the underlying infrastructure that systematically disfavors them, which he would have attempted, were he indeed particularly interested in ending racial segregation, legally and socially.

 

[Architectonic]

I would change

3. Knowledge without character

Perhaps it was a little lost in translation. These are not personal blunders, but general blunders.

I think Knowledge without character could be translated as knowledge without context.

 

[Solar Empath]

The eastern concept of Yin and Yang is so different from ower perspective on duality because for them it is not duality. It is not good or evil, it is both. The best way to describe it is, for us a square table is square, for them a square table is a little bit round. You can never have Yin without yang, there is always a bit of the opposite present. So in my opinion you can never be at one side, you will always have one foot on the other side. Also with yin and yang, you can never be yin always, yin turns back into yang and visa versa. You should see this as a neverending dance between yin and yang, always on the move, always changing, always are both present. And by accepting both and accepting there dynamics and by going with there flow instead of trying to stay foot, you will get a balanced harmonious live.

It is pretty much as you say, though it encompases the Western (Babylonian) dualism as well as the one you highlight:

Tao Te Ching 2

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.

 

[Satya]

Convince me that he denounced the caste system, and I'd agree.
You seem to be sure of it, I'd like to know why.

Standing up for the voting rights of these people is not the same as removing the underlying infrastructure that systematically disfavors them, which he would have attempted, were he indeed particularly interested in ending racial segregation, legally and socially.

Your whole, "He didn't denounce it, so he clearly supported it" argument is amusing.

Gandhi was a reformer. My thought is that Gandhi would have felt very conflicted with abandoning a traditional institution that had existed for so long and he was more focused on reforming it to correct the social injustices than in denouncing it outright. Many of the black leaders back in the 60s had similar feelings about segregation. They didn't necessarily want to do away with the institution of segregation, but rather wanted to empower the black community to take care of its own and to correct the social injustices of the system. More progressive type leaders such as Martin Luther King moved to eradicate segregation and more progressive leaders in India moved against the caste system. If you want to argue that Gandhi did not do enough to end the caste system, then that might be a valid argument, but I see little evidence to support your assertion that he supported it in his later life or that he had any sort of "rampant racist agenda".

 

[BenW]

Your whole, "He didn't denounce it, so he clearly supported it" argument is amusing.

Not my argument.
He spoke in support of it, in language far from uncertain.
You seem aware of this, since you allege that he must have abandoned it later in life.
He supported it, and didn't offer much evidence that his position changed; what is illogical about my conclusion?

Gandhi was a reformer. My thought is that Gandhi would have felt very conflicted with abandoning a traditional institution that had existed for so long and he was more focused on reforming it to correct the social injustices than in denouncing it outright. Many of the black leaders back in the 60s had similar feelings about segregation. They didn't necessarily want to do away with the institution of segregation, but rather wanted to empower the black community to take care of its own and to correct the social injustices of the system. More progressive type leaders such as Martin Luther King moved to eradicate segregation and more progressive leaders in India moved against the caste system. If you want to argue that Gandhi did not do enough to end the caste system, then that might be a valid argument, but I see little evidence to support your assertion that he supported it in his later life or that he had any sort of "rampant racist agenda".

He made statements, completely aside from the caste issues, that were outright hateful to blacks.

[youtube]RJP6LFVzb6Y[/youtube]

I don't know why you are so desperate to maintain the suspension of disbelief that he must have tacitly changed his views later in life, but I still remain unconvinced.

 

[Satya]

Not my argument.
He spoke in support of it, in language far from uncertain.
You seem aware of this, since you allege that he must have abandoned it later in life.
He supported it, and didn't offer much evidence that his position changed; what is illogical about my conclusion?

Because he acted to reform it.

He made statements, completely aside from isues even related to the caste issues, that were outright fateful to blacks.

[youtube]RJP6LFVzb6Y[/youtube]

I hate videos like that where they don't give you dates. The Indian Opinion newspaper was back in 1903 and the racist writing they are talking about are all derived from before 1915. And he met with black leaders in the 1930s. People who were prejudiced when they were young can overcome their prejudice when they get older. I don't know why pointing out that he made racist comments when he was young is any indication that he was racist all his life.

I don't know why you are so desperate to maintain the suspension of disbelief that he must have changed his views later in life, but I still remain unconvinced.

I provided evidence that he met with prominent black leaders and moved to reform the caste system. That is substantial evidence to indicate that he did change his views later in life. You have yet to provide any evidence that he supported the caste system in his later life. As such, it would seem to me that you are desperate to maintain a suspension of disbelief that he did not change his views later in life.

Feel free to argue that Gandhi was imperfect, but until you actually provide evidence that he was hateful towards blacks and supportive of the caste system in his later years, you really have no basis to argue that he had a "rampant racist agenda". To the contrary, the fact that it seems Gandhi was able to overcome many of his own prejudices in his fight against social injustice makes him to appear to be an even greater leader.

But hey, if Penn and Teller Bullshit videos are the sources where you get your information, then I imagine you have some pretty one sided views on a lot of issues. It's good propoganda though.

 

[Morgain]

It is pretty much as you say, though it encompases the Western (Babylonian) dualism as well as the one you highlight:

ouww you read the tao te Tjing!!!! I'm way into taoisme. It is my religion (if you can call it that way). I try to life by it and it helped me a lot to get more harmony and peace in my live.

 

[Gaze]

Take Christianity for example. The religion calls on people to take care of the poor and to even give up their own dignity when struck by an enemy. The very basis of the relgion was the sacrifice of Jesus.

Politics without principle rules the current day. Just imagine the ad campaigns from the last Presidential election or the ad campaigns in the gay marriage debate.

Agree.

 

[Barnabas]

Perhaps it was a little lost in translation. These are not personal blunders, but general blunders.

I think Knowledge without character could be translated as knowledge without context.

no knowledge without wisdom has a very direct meaning that accompanies this phrase.

 

[Solar Empath]

ouww you read the tao te Tjing!!!! I'm way into taoisme. It is my religion (if you can call it that way). I try to life by it and it helped me a lot to get more harmony and peace in my live.

Indeed. Much of Western Tradition is bound up in the dialectic. This is great for producing active strength and mental rigor in the mundane, but does poorly for producing true compassionate acceptance or inner peace. Lao Tsu really cuts through the dialectic struggle (ten thousand things) and illuminates the existential unity of life (Tao)

 

[Lucifer]

Actually, I like what Gahndi had for 6 and 7 better. Take Christianity for example. The religion calls on people to take care of the poor and to even give up their own dignity when struck by an enemy. The very basis of the relgion was the sacrifice of Jesus.

But Ghandi was describing blunders. I I think the bigger blunder religious people can have is not worshipping with due humility. It leads to a lot of nastiness, people tend to think that they can do the will of god better then God can. Think about the problems in the middle east and all sorts of religious oppression. While I can see that worship without piety can be a problem I just don't think it causes as much suffering. Its not as big of a problem.

Politics without principle rules the current day. Just imagine the ad campaigns from the last Presidential election or the ad campaigns in the gay marriage debate.

Oh yeah I agree there. I just thought it might help change peoples attitudes if going into politics were seen as a sacrifice. So maybe add that as number 8 or add a totally different section for politics.