Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Gandhi The Peace Monger

  1. #1 Gandhi The Peace Monger 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    It is funny, but the actuality of it is. That Germany and America were both facing an internal struggle against what was being recognized as slavery through "economy"/inflation.

    Japan as well had some trouble with seeing the reality of what industrialization could do for a poor country almost over night. Yet there was no big push to insure that all were treated with humanity. A lot of the riches were just wasted.

    India was under the control of England. And England was pretty bold about the fact that they were using India as a slave labor nation. They were using India to supply England's war machine. That made India an ally of England, no matter the reason or severity of the slave masters whip.

    Now my question here is, how could a handful of deceitful law makers or back seat dictators, create so much havoc as to cause nations fighting a common foe such as slavery. To go to war with one another?





    This shows something else. And shows why America could never be behind a government or people we were just at war with. The power behind the congress that is stated in public to have ultimate authority, is seen in reality to be a useless bag of wind, push comes to shove.

    This also backs up George Washington's warning, never to trust another country for anything, such as a staple products production. Never trust another nation to supply military support for any reason. Never rely on another country for a favor in any way shape or form. By thousands of years of history, George Washington has proven this to just be a law of history.

    The fact that India wanted to make peace with Japan, after Pearl Harbor is interesting. This also shows that an ally of England is no ones friend. At least in the peace monger Gandhi's, mind.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It's because Ghandi wasn't genuinely peaceful at all, that he was successful. His tactics had to do with playing war powers against each other. He didn't fight himself, nor his followers, but they depended on the willingness of others to exert military force on their behalf.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's because Ghandi wasn't genuinely peaceful at all, that he was successful. His tactics had to do with playing war powers against each other. He didn't fight himself, nor his followers, but they depended on the willingness of others to exert military force on their behalf.


    They were under British rule at the time. And it is obvious that Gandhi had no say against the wishes of England.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ghandi's civil disobedience was targeted at making the UK look like monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world, who could, and did in some cases, take fully military actions to pressure England into letting the Indian colony go.

    Roosevelt threatening to withhold military supplies in the earlier stages of WW II (before the USA actually joined in the fighting) unless the UK made concessions to Ghandi is an example of what I mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    It annoys me to see how this man is still venerated as a pacifist and a voice against segregation. He was a horrible little bigot and racist.

    http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/2/Kemp184-186.html
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I'm not seeing it in your link. The Kaffir culture was in indolent culture that taught its children to be lazy. Cultural prejudice and racial prejudice are two different things, because one is genetic, and the other is the result of choice, or at least something one *can* choose, if they're determined enough.

    I don't see any quote suggesting that Ghandi thought the Kaffir were genetically inferior, just culturally inferior, and for the purposes that he described, he was entirely right. They were less capable than the Indian people of being integrated into European culture as equal contributors to the European economy.

    And, especially, if you take his arguments as being purely economic, then there's not even anything subjective about them. If you randomly took 5,000 Kaffir people of that time and analysed their work productivity, do you honestly think there is any chance at all that it would stack up well against a similar analysis carried out on 5,000 Indian people of that time?

    Would you want to bet on those odds? People cry "racist" over the dumbest things these days. Nobody objects if women get different insurance rates than men, even though it's the same kind of generalization and/or statistical analysis that leads to the one thing as leads to many generalizations we call "prejudiced", but which bear out in exactly the same way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm not seeing it in your link. The Kaffir culture was in indolent culture that taught its children to be lazy. Cultural prejudice and racial prejudice are two different things, because one is genetic, and the other is the result of choice, or at least something one *can* choose, if they're determined enough.

    I don't see any quote suggesting that Ghandi thought the Kaffir were genetically inferior, just culturally inferior, and for the purposes that he described, he was entirely right. They were less capable than the Indian people of being integrated into European culture as equal contributors to the European economy.

    And, especially, if you take his arguments as being purely economic, then there's not even anything subjective about them. If you randomly took 5,000 Kaffir people of that time and analysed their work productivity, do you honestly think there is any chance at all that it would stack up well against a similar analysis carried out on 5,000 Indian people of that time?

    Would you want to bet on those odds? People cry "racist" over the dumbest things these days. Nobody objects if women get different insurance rates than men, even though it's the same kind of generalization and/or statistical analysis that leads to the one thing as leads to many generalizations we call "prejudiced", but which bear out in exactly the same way.
    I don't think you read the link he posted at all.

    Firstly, I don't see how you can justify someone as being culturally inferior. How do you decide what is culturally valuable? On the basis of what your own culture values. It is purely based in bias.

    Moreover, the mere term "Kaffir culture" is insulting to anyone who is aware of the history of the word's use in South Africa.

    I don't doubt racism being a factor in Gandhi's views in fighting for Indian rights in Africa, nor do I think it really matter if one idealizes him or not. His later political philosophies and methods used in India are significant and deserving of respect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Gandhi The Peace Monger 
    Forum Masters Degree Golkarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    This also backs up George Washington's warning, never to trust another country for anything, such as a staple products production. Never trust another nation to supply military support for any reason. Never rely on another country for a favor in any way shape or form. By thousands of years of history, George Washington has proven this to just be a law of history.
    Interesting, Machiavelli also said that...

    But they were probably both right on this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Gandhi The Peace Monger 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Golkarian
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    This also backs up George Washington's warning, never to trust another country for anything, such as a staple products production. Never trust another nation to supply military support for any reason. Never rely on another country for a favor in any way shape or form. By thousands of years of history, George Washington has proven this to just be a law of history.
    Interesting, Machiavelli also said that...

    But they were probably both right on this one.
    When you see American politicians break this rule, and almost all do, you know they are just in for the money and a quick scheme.

    It took poor George Washington so many hardships to find all these truths. By the time he had it all in order. The country already fell back into the hands of law makers. But when he turned down a third term in office, and said he had enough of the politics, and then called America an experiment to be learned from. I believe he was setting the stage for round two.

    So many small towns in America, could at that time, have already wiped out, the capital. With the technology that was obtained through the work of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and other scientists that came here from other countries. All the greats came here.

    Arron Burr claimed that with 500 men he could drive the Washington DC forces into the Patomick river. Arron Burr fought in the revolutionary war. So we know the same scum made it back into power. The reason was that already the Washington DC forces were no longer being trained as American soldiers, were to be trained.

    It is funny but the Constitution has nothing to do with laws. Rather it was a document for new comers and anyone not understanding America. So they could read it and understand what America was about.

    When the law makers found it impossible to pass new laws. They often tried to tie something George Washington backed, to a new law. That was the only way to get a new law on the books. By blaming George Washington for the new law, based on something the law makers claimed George Washington wanted.

    George Washington thought laws were the reason, they were breaking away from England. He once said walking through the forest, to some other men. "The new congress can write a new law a minute, but they cannot seem to bring themselves to make a single law against slavery".

    The truth was that the new congress could not even to themselves, define what slavery was. Because they were probably already damned to hell, if only by their own estimation, for the lack of respect they had shown for their fellow man.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Ghandi's civil disobedience was targeted at making the UK look like monsters in the eyes of the rest of the world, who could, and did in some cases, take fully military actions to pressure England into letting the Indian colony go.

    Roosevelt threatening to withhold military supplies in the earlier stages of WW II (before the USA actually joined in the fighting) unless the UK made concessions to Ghandi is an example of what I mean.
    I cannot really blame him for that. If he was better at it. We might not have gotten involved in the war at all.

    That was really an American thing. We Americans do not like slavery. Because it hurts all. Benjamin Franklin stated that slaves were making America less productive then England.

    By the time you figure in the housing, medical considerations, and feeding of slaves, not to mention the time it takes to train and supervise them. A single English craftsmen free by most definitions of the word. Could do the work of ten slaves. And he did not need to be watched, housed, given medial treatments, clothed, or fed.

    This was one of the major reasons for our founding fathers wanting to end slavery. There is no benefit to it. It is a trojan horse. Look at England's history of slavery. It starts in embarrassment, breaks friendships and trusts. Causes war, causes hundreds of years of distrust, and almost always ends in embarrassment.

    England had made us almost dependent on slavery. They were almost giving the slaves away. The slaves were really used as a useless status symbol of the insanely wealthy. This lead the rest of the Americans fooled by the false wealth, to copy fools. And sink themselves.

    Look around today, if one of the divas started to take heroin, and made it look or sound cool. Half the nation would Overdose.



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm not seeing it in your link. The Kaffir culture was in indolent culture that taught its children to be lazy. Cultural prejudice and racial prejudice are two different things, because one is genetic, and the other is the result of choice, or at least something one *can* choose, if they're determined enough.

    I don't see any quote suggesting that Ghandi thought the Kaffir were genetically inferior, just culturally inferior, and for the purposes that he described, he was entirely right. They were less capable than the Indian people of being integrated into European culture as equal contributors to the European economy.

    And, especially, if you take his arguments as being purely economic, then there's not even anything subjective about them. If you randomly took 5,000 Kaffir people of that time and analysed their work productivity, do you honestly think there is any chance at all that it would stack up well against a similar analysis carried out on 5,000 Indian people of that time?

    Would you want to bet on those odds? People cry "racist" over the dumbest things these days. Nobody objects if women get different insurance rates than men, even though it's the same kind of generalization and/or statistical analysis that leads to the one thing as leads to many generalizations we call "prejudiced", but which bear out in exactly the same way.
    I don't think you read the link he posted at all.

    Firstly, I don't see how you can justify someone as being culturally inferior. How do you decide what is culturally valuable? On the basis of what your own culture values. It is purely based in bias.
    Just use utilitary considerations as your basis, instead of bullsh*t. (All other considerations really are just that: bullsh*t)

    If the cultural training a person receives as a child doesn't help them to successfully obtain the things they need as adults, in a way that mostly either helps, or avoids hurting, the economic welfare of those around them, then I'm fully comfortable calling it "inferior".

    This is usually measured relative to the dominant economic system, but there again: it *should* be measured relative to the dominant economic system. Compatability with that system *is* economic fitness, because economies work best when everybody agrees to use more or less the same rules and communication standards.

    If you have too many different rules and standards, then the concept of "interchangeable parts", the driving force of the industrial revolution, and quite literally the only efficient way to do pretty much anything, breaks down and becomes useless. You end up needing 10 fully educated people to do a job one educated person could have done alone, if there were fewer standards.



    Moreover, the mere term "Kaffir culture" is insulting to anyone who is aware of the history of the word's use in South Africa.
    I'll admit I'm not aware of what it means. I had assumed it was simply another word for "indigenous", but relating specifically to Afrika. I probably should have looked it up before commenting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    While I agree that it is ok to disaproove of a people because of cultural traits rather than inherent, genetic disposition, why are we assuming Ghandi was right in that African/Indians are lazy? This prejudice goes back to India's African slave trade. When slavery was outlawed in America, slaves were given a measure of freedom and released. In India, freed slaves were slaughtered wholesale. A friend of mine, a native Kenyan tells me to this day Indians aren't exactly on friendly terms with Africans and slavery is well remembered by both sides.

    Ghandi openly supported repression of lower caste Indians too. He certainly was no Mahatma (saint).
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ok, you're starting to win me over to the idea of Ghandi as just another kind of racist, willing to oppress another group of people to favor his own.

    However, as far as the laziness of the "Khaffir" people (which I was understanding just to mean African indigenous population) , it just seems to me that if they weren't mostly lazy, indolent, hunter gatherer types, some of the countries of Afrika might have built themselves up into industrial powers somehow.

    But, to be clear, I don't think laziness is an inherent trait of that group specifically. All hunter gatherer societies seem lazy to an agricultural population. (Or, to be even more clear, all hunter gatherer societies *are* lazy by comparison to an agricultural society). But, go figure. The survival strategy of a hunter gatherer society consists in a combination of not over hunting, and killing members of other tribes in order to prevent them from over hunting.

    There's nothing about that way of life that's consistent with industrial society. It seems that only societies that start with a fully developed notion of agriculture to begin with are able to transition to modern life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    First, most Africans were were not and are not hunter gatherers. The idea that Africa was once composed of guys wandering some hot savanna with spears is as historically inaccurate as it is to say most Native Americans rode about the plains on horseback chasing buffalo.

    As to why African nations did not grow into industrial superpowers rivaling the west, the very abbreviated answer is topographical differences (North to South spanning continent) and number of native domesticatable plants and animals. It wasn't a continent wide culture of lazyness extending into pre-history. Read the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". It handily resolves this issue.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •