My beef with Gandhi

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's aneeshm, what do you expect?

[aneeshm]

Re: Re: Re: My beef with Gandhi

Originally posted by LordShiva


Are you saying that there were no Muslims involved in the Indian freedom movement??

No .

[LordShiva]

So when you said "if we exclude for a moment the Muslims" you really meant "if we exclude for a moment some Muslims, as well as some Hindus and Christians and atheists?"

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva
So when you said "if we exclude for a moment the Muslims" you really meant "if we exclude for a moment some Muslims, as well as some Hindus and Christians and atheists?"

No .

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Pekka
if he had been born in state under Hitler's attacks, he should have been hanged as a traitor who lead masses of peopel to their deaths with his ideology.

You seem to be under the impression that Gandhi forced the Indian people to protest non-violently. He didn't. He did it individually, and then with a small group of like-minded people. Only when the rest of the country was convinced that it was the smart thing to do, and that it worked, did they join in as well.

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah, it's easier to just quit and say peace and come on let's stop fighting. It's even easier to die in those circumstances than survive.

No, it's not. But I don't expect you to understand.

Originally posted by Pekka
He took a hell of a risk to play his games. He risked everyones lives.

No, he didn't. See above.

Originally posted by Pekka
I'm sure these included empirical testing on imperialist mindset and the labs were supported by the vegetarist movement of the animal lovers.

Which makes no sense either. He was all about let's not eat animals too. So what do we do with cows? Do you see cows running in the wild? Now, in India, I knwo cow is a sacred animal. I know you guys dont' eat them. That's cool. However, outside India, in western part of the world, we eat these buggers plus milk them. So... if we don't abuse these animals, we have no race of cows. So in a way, Gandhi was contributing to the fact that cows have no right to live. They have a right to serve our cause and breed and make sure they get fat and milky.

This makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Pekka
Wow, a staring contest"!!!!!! You see, when you're in a staring contest, the whole idea is that both can back it up. So if Gandhi would lose, he would run like a little girl, getting beat up by Brits in every single step. Staring contest 0, sticks 100.

Gandhi did lose, many times, and was thrown in jail many times, and was beaten with a stick many times. And then he won. Staring contest 100, sticks 0.

Originally posted by Pekka
Yeah, that's called propaganda, you'll try it first and if it don't work, you strike the tanks from the air and kill them all. That's plan 1. No strikes doesn't include plan 2, it includes 'didn't work, now let's get ready to be crushed by the tanks'.

If you're going to be crushed by tanks, it'll happen whether you pick up a gun or not. Tanks crushing 1000 unarmed protesters is better for one's cause than tanks crushing 1000 protesters armed with country rifles and machetes.

[MrFun]

Pekka needs to read some books.

[DaShi]

Yeah, correct all those books, Pekka!

[Pekka]

Books.. hey, the facts I've stated here can be found. You know, with this information, you can form an opinion. This is an opinion I'm stating here.

Can you guys see what are facts and what are opinions? Only few can in this thread it seems like. So to your insult response Mr Fun, I won't even reply to that.

"
And it worked brilliantly in India, without much bloodshed at all. It wasn't 'luck', it was a wonderful strategy that paid off handsomely. He knew his enemy.
"

YES IT DID WORK! HAve I EVER said it didn't?! You have a probelm with circles man, like a broken record you are skilled at missing the point. You can NEVER calculate play that big and be sure it all works out. I mean you can believe it will, but you can never be sure, unless you're insane. Can you even figure out how many variables that play has? It's easy to say afterwards, but then, no way to tell.

So he took a risk. And he should pay for it by losing his honour.

"No you haven't. You only will grudgingly admit it worked well in India..."

SO? That is still recognizing an accomplishment. If you want to fight semantics, there are other threads for that I'm sure.

"And armed revolutions aren't risky to people's lives"

Of course they are. You just don't get my point now do you? My point is, to give a fighting chance is to guarantee more individual opportunities to survive if the future is unknown. That is, if you become a hippie and take MY guns away because you say you have a better way, I say no, don't take them away they are for protecting my family and my little kids and you just dance around like a stoned prankster, I'm going to be pissed off. Now, do that to millions, and you have what I'd call a risky play and the bets are on the table, you just bet the lives of so many people, playing God.

He got lucky.

"
So, if the economy collapses, the authoritarian state will collapse? Explain North Korea then.

The fact of the matter was through brute force, the USSR could have survived, even with a crumbling economy. But the people said no more. They marched into the streets and said this is over. And the military couldn't stand in the way, even though they were trying to take over."

Yes, it was because of the protest just that same day.. oh yeah... you really use false arguments, have you noticed?

Ok Let me try to play with your logics then. OK, if it had nothing or little to do with economy (aka the standard of living, aka life), and more because of few protests, then why did nazi germany survive, there were protests? Ok so let's look at a democracy that doesn't attack its people. THere were lots of protests when US invaded Iraq. So why didn't that stop? What you're trying to do is to give all the credit to your only argument here, crumbling one, because if that was 100% true, it would you support your sissie theory.

But it doesn't. You compare situations, wars and people when it suits you. That's not how it works. MLK and Gandhi were different people, different countries and different situations. Don't draw parallels between these two and base your arguments on that.. it's the same logic as 'cat has 4 legs, dog has 4 legs... '.

The FACT IS, he could have never known 100% it would work. No one could. SO, he took a big risk. This is ALL I have been saying. Instead you come back with 'it was for sure, everyone knew, 100%, no chances for any other result, no way, it was a sure thing'. No one can ever knwo these things. He took a risk. He played with the lives of people to try out his thing.

"You know , Pekka , this comes from your complete lack of knowledge about Hinduism . According to the Gita , the seeker after enlightenment is supposed to have full control over his senses . Gandhi's sleeping with women without doing anything was supposed to be a test he set himself . "

Sure, and Michael Jackson never did anything. Just was sleeping with them. It doesn't have to be sexual. Would you let your kids sleep with Gandhi?

"There is an incident in his life when once , after taking the vov of brahmacharya ( celibacy or abstinence ) , he had an erection , and this shocked him quite a bit . He was horrified ."

Exactly. He was a sissie.

"You seem to be under the impression that Gandhi forced the Indian people to protest non-violently. He didn't. He did it individually, and then with a small group of like-minded people."

Now this is one of the better arguments.. because this battles my points directly. None of these go around and bring outside things and shout louder. OK... yeah. He did it individually, but that's like Charles Manson also never forced anyone to kill anyone.

"No, it's not. But I don't expect you to understand. "

Yes it is, but I would never expect you to stand up and fight.

"Gandhi did lose, many times, and was thrown in jail many times, and was beaten with a stick many times. And then he won. Staring contest 100, sticks 0.
"

No, he got beaten to pulp. That served him right. And he could never back himself up, so that's sticks 100, Gandhi 1, India 99. I reduce that 1 because of Gandhi.

"If you're going to be crushed by tanks, it'll happen whether you pick up a gun or not. Tanks crushing 1000 unarmed protesters is better for one's cause than tanks crushing 1000 protesters armed with country rifles and machetes."

No, it's even better to destroy the tank and only the tank crew gets killed. What, say it has 4 people in it. 1000 > 4.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So he took a risk. And he should pay for it by losing his honour.

Dwight Eisenhower took a risk by invading Normandy. He should lose his honor for it. After all, we all know it was just luck that he was successful.

My point is, to give a fighting chance is to guarantee more individual opportunities to survive if the future is unknown.

Yeah, and it is obvious that you get more individual oppertunities to survive by peaceful non-violent protest. What happens, the colonizer gets violent with your band of people? On the other hand, if you rise up in violent revolution, what happens if the colonizer crushes your uprising? They probably go after all of your people, which they would be less likely to do if you simply protested.

You fail in armed revolt and your people may be slaughtered, including those who had nothing to do with it. If you fail in non-violent protest, you are far more likely to simply go to jail, while others of your people aren't punished.

The FACT IS, he could have never known 100% it would work. No one could. SO, he took a big risk. This is ALL I have been saying. Instead you come back with 'it was for sure, everyone knew, 100%, no chances for any other result, no way, it was a sure thing'. No one can ever knwo these things. He took a risk. He played with the lives of people to try out his thing.

You must be on drugs. Otherwise this level of stupidity cannot be explained. Please show where anyone said "it was for sure"? Stop pulling things out of your ass just because you dislike people who can get things done by not fighting. Simply because you get a boner for beating people up doesn't mean that's the only way to do things.

Yes, it was because of the protest just that same day.. oh yeah... you really use false arguments, have you noticed?

Ok Let me try to play with your logics then. OK, if it had nothing or little to do with economy (aka the standard of living, aka life), and more because of few protests, then why did nazi germany survive, there were protests? Ok so let's look at a democracy that doesn't attack its people. THere were lots of protests when US invaded Iraq. So why didn't that stop? What you're trying to do is to give all the credit to your only argument here, crumbling one, because if that was 100% true, it would you support your sissie theory.

Continuing with the on drugs thing... did anyone say that protests always work? I must have missed that one. However, protests DID work in the former Soviet Union. People rose up and declared it was wrong. You can have a failed economy but if no one rises up, nothing will change. Ie, North Korea. You have to have people say, no, this is wrong and we won't stand for it. The Berlin Wall did not come down because of violence. It came down because the people rose up in non-violent demonstrations.

Has anyone told you that you should be a farmer, because you have a Hell of a lot of strawmen back there.

[Pekka]

"Yeah, and it is obvious that you get more individual oppertunities to survive by peaceful non-violent protest. What happens, the colonizer gets violent with your band of people? On the other hand, if you rise up in violent revolution, what happens if the colonizer crushes your uprising? They probably go after all of your people, which they would be less likely to do if you simply protested."

Ah, thank you for good argument. Finally. Ok.. this is a good point. I was merely indicating, that you give an individual chance, that is if you were in a submarine in a war, you place your lives on the competence of the commander who decides your moves if you win the fight or not. If he makes the wrong decision, you all go down without a chance. If you're on a dry land, your commander makes a bad choice, at least you can still run with your weapon and have that slim fighting chance for yourself. It's slim, but at least you still have SOME control of your own life. Would you rather be in submarine or dry land in tha tsituation? I'd choose dry land. Trust my commander but when it's obvious he made the wrong choice, run like hell. IN subs.. after it's all said and done, you have no other opportunities.

"If you fail in non-violent protest, you are far more likely to simply go to jail, while others of your people aren't punished."

No guarantees of this. Saddam wouldn't have thought this way.

"Stop pulling things out of your ass just because you dislike people who can get things done by not fighting. Simply because you get a boner for beating people up doesn't mean that's the only way to do things."

Well I did look up the thread, I was sure I heard it not once but few times. Seems I was wrong, no one said it. But that's the impression I got, so I got the wrong impression.

Your words about me being sexually aroused by violence is disgusting. Your way of taking things to personal level is really not cool.

Ohhh.. but I never said that, did I? I said, that sometimes non-violence works and sometimes it doesn't. Go figure.

I also said MLK had huge courage. According to you, I should be all about dissing him because he went peacefully, but I wasn't, I said he was a hero. So you see, you're generalizing AGAIN and even resorted calling me names.

"However, protests DID work in the former Soviet Union. People rose up and declared it was wrong. "

No. failed Economy TOOLED SU. It was only a matter of someone saying 'this be enough'. Hardly was this because of protests. Protests didn't doom SU. Economy did. Protests were only a small sideshow. Economy was the reason.

"
Has anyone told you that you should be a farmer, because you have a Hell of a lot of strawmen back there.
"

No. But then again I haven't insulted you, like you do on continuous basis. Very Gandhian of you.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Wycoff
Probably mass genocide. They constitued around 10% of the population in the 1950s-1960s. If they would have staged widespread violent insurrection, I imagine that there would have been an incredibly violent reaction.

But they aren't widespread throughout American socierty, but concentrated in several small areas, where they tend to be a majority or a significant minority.

What would happen to the whites during a hypothetical violent racial uprising in a place that was 80% blacks, 20% whites? They'd most likely be viciously slaughtered. Such a slaughter would be a great propaganda tool for the white reaction, and could be very useful in mustering revanchist armies from the predominantly white areas. Klan members / sympathizers from the north and the midwest would most likely travel to Alabama or South Carolina to rescue their fellow whites and putdown the black rioters. They'd resemble the Freikorps that sprung up in Germany after WW1 and surpressed the Communists.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Pekka
"If you fail in non-violent protest, you are far more likely to simply go to jail, while others of your people aren't punished."

No guarantees of this. Saddam wouldn't have thought this way.

This underscores the argument of most people here. Non-violent protest can be, and has been, a highly effective strategy in some circumstances, like when confronting a sufficiently democratic/liberal majority.
In other situations it would fail miserably. Gahndi admitted that, and would have countered the Japanese with violence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Trust my commander but when it's obvious he made the wrong choice, run like hell. IN subs.. after it's all said and done, you have no other opportunities.

Gandhi was no one's commander. He was just this guy that people who agreed with him followed.

No guarantees of this. Saddam wouldn't have thought this way.

Ask the Kurds what Saddam thought of violent uprisings, btw.

Your words about me being sexually aroused by violence is disgusting. Your way of taking things to personal level is really not cool.

I wasn't trying to be funny (well not too much). You really do need some help, Pekka. You have a, what appears to be, sexual fixation on violence to solve problems.

I said, that sometimes non-violence works and sometimes it doesn't.

And then you denegrate the biggest example of the success of non-violence. Who are your trying to fool here, Pekka? It's like saying Republicans and Democrats (in the US) both have great ideas and then trashing everything Franklin Roosevelt ever did.

No. failed Economy TOOLED SU. It was only a matter of someone saying 'this be enough'. Hardly was this because of protests. Protests didn't doom SU. Economy did. Protests were only a small sideshow. Economy was the reason.

Oh please... and if the protests were a 'sideshow' and it would have collapsed just because of economy, why has the rule in North Korea, Cuba, etc. continued? Its because someone has to say "this is enough". It isn't something to be dismissive, it is a very important role. Sure, the economy was one of the big underlying reasons that people stood up and protested, BUT people had to protest for the collapse to happen. Without the protest, things continue on. The military was going to take over the USSR if people weren't protesting in the Kremlin. They would have continued.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Pekka
"Yeah, and it is obvious that you get more individual oppertunities to survive by peaceful non-violent protest. What happens, the colonizer gets violent with your band of people? On the other hand, if you rise up in violent revolution, what happens if the colonizer crushes your uprising? They probably go after all of your people, which they would be less likely to do if you simply protested."

Ah, thank you for good argument. Finally. Ok.. this is a good point.

This argument has been made several times in this thread, you've missed it every time.

Originally posted by Pekka
I was merely indicating, that you give an individual chance, that is if you were in a submarine in a war, you place your lives on the competence of the commander who decides your moves if you win the fight or not. If he makes the wrong decision, you all go down without a chance. If you're on a dry land, your commander makes a bad choice, at least you can still run with your weapon and have that slim fighting chance for yourself. It's slim, but at least you still have SOME control of your own life. Would you rather be in submarine or dry land in tha tsituation? I'd choose dry land. Trust my commander but when it's obvious he made the wrong choice, run like hell. IN subs.. after it's all said and done, you have no other opportunities.

India happens to be above sea level.

Besides, Gandhi was not commander of the Indian people. If he'd failed, it would have sucked for him. There were violent revolutionaries as well; Indian freedom fighters were free to follow them instead. They chose to follow Gandhi instead. How is this his fault?

Originally posted by Pekka
"If you fail in non-violent protest, you are far more likely to simply go to jail, while others of your people aren't punished."

No guarantees of this. Saddam wouldn't have thought this way.

Correct, no guarantee. Hence the "far more likely" part. Of course, being responsible for the life of every Indian like you seem to believe Gandhi was, isn't it smarter to risk going to jail yourself than having your people slaughtered in order to crush a violent uprising?

Originally posted by Pekka
I also said MLK had huge courage. According to you, I should be all about dissing him because he went peacefully, but I wasn't, I said he was a hero. So you see, you're generalizing AGAIN and even resorted calling me names.

Why exactly was his non-violent protest different enough for you to conclude that he was courageous while Gandhi wasn't?

[Pekka]

"Gandhi was no one's commander. He was just this guy that people who agreed with him followed."

Yes and thus he became a commander with huge responsibility, even if he didn't like it. Hey, that's what he wanted to do so.. he must accept the responsibility as well.

"Ask the Kurds what Saddam thought of violent uprisings, btw."

Right, but my point is, you never know the outcome and keeping vigilante gives you that individual small chance of survival.

"
I wasn't trying to be funny (well not too much). You really do need some help, Pekka. You have a, what appears to be, sexual fixation on violence to solve problems."

Uhh... ok?

"And then you denegrate the biggest example of the success of non-violence. Who are your trying to fool here, Pekka? It's like saying Republicans and Democrats (in the US) both have great ideas and then trashing everything Franklin Roosevelt ever did."

Doesn't matter, as long as you are on the losing side! And draw is just both sides losing so I'm here for a big win!

"Oh please... and if the protests were a 'sideshow' and it would have collapsed just because of economy, why has the rule in North Korea, Cuba, etc. continued?"

So, the passive resistance hasn't worked there. DO you honestly think, th at if people were protesting in NK peacefulyl and holding hands, that it would end some other way than a bloodshed?

On the SU, you just seem to think the economy played a smaller role than few protests. I disagree.

And your way of telling me that I am mentally ill with sexual violence is passive aggressive. I suggest you stop with your attacks.