Issy

Any evidence that Gandhi used violence to achieve his ends, as you claim?

In his earlier period, Gandhi spent a long time in South Africa. Examining his writings from that period reveal him to be a monumental racist who would have been perfectly at home in your average KKK meeting and held racial views concerning Aryans that were based on the same ideas that fuelled Nazi philosophy.

While in SA, Gandhi had written to the authorities that the Indians there were required to join the same queues as the blacks (he called them kaffirs) which he considered to be deeming to the Indians who were obviously better. ("We felt the indignity too much and … petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans.”).

"“I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan..." Hitler felt kindly toward the Indians for the same reason.

He complained that the British arrangements "degrade[d] us to the level of the raw kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then, pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”

“We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race.”

While imprisoned in SA he complained about being treated like a native..."We could understand not being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives seemed too much to put up with.”

Somehow, I'm not surprised Paul admires him.

Dear Individual,

«What do you say to necessary violence ? For example when the need arises to defend oneself or when you're forced to intrude on other's territory to find food ?»

The average person cannot live without some degree of violence, only saints can, so it would be unreasonable to expect the ordinary person to refrain from self-defense when attacked.

Unprovoked intruding on others' living-space to find food goes a step beyond self-defense, so is harder to justify, even though we do it all the time in regards to animals.

Curbing our violence is a long-term project which we ought to keep working on and improve. Meanwhile, restricting violence to self-defense alone (including the defense of our dependents) is morally acceptable.

Being selective there mhaze, Gandhi pre WWI in South Africa, his writings concerning Blacks by todays standards can be considered racists, as can the views of about every World leader pre WWII. Later on Gandhi developed anti-racists opinions, and his writings etc reflected those opinions. Of course you fail to make any mention of that fact.

Pre WWII the founder of the Liberal Party Robert Menzies showed his racism through his support for the White Australia policy, and his subsequent treatment of Aboriginal people in this country, proving Menzies was a racists. Pre WWII Menzies was a supporter of Nazism, as demonstrated by his 1938 visit to Nazi Germany and the glowing report he delivered on his return. Menzies was most disappointed that he failed to meet the Fuhrer.

Can I take it then mhaze as a Liberal Party supporter (from reading your posts, its highly probable) you agree with Menzies racists and extreme views.

Paul,

Oh so the bloke who says he never explains...explains.

"Being selective there mhaze,"

Yes I was. I elected not to mention Gandhi's paedophilia.

It's more than a little funny that Paul suddenly develops some nuance about his hero's racism. Somehow it's ok that he was racist if he stopped being racist later. Let's remember that Gandhi was well into his 40s when he finally left South Africa so his racism wasn't exactly the views of a naive kid.

Then somehow Paul decrees that since Menzies was a racist then that excuses Gandhi....or something. The logic or lack thereof seems to be that if one person's a racist then its ok for another to be one.

"Can I take it then mhaze as a Liberal Party supporter..."

I'm not a Liberal supporter. Haven't been for some time. I've mentioned quite often.
But even if I was I don't see how it follows that I therefore agree with everything Menzies said or did. Yes, the White Australia Policy was racist. Who else supported it - Calwell?, Chifley? the union movement? Evatt? And let's not talk about Whitlam and Cairns racism toward Vietnamese.

It was a different world with different views. But passing strange that that only occurs to you when your own hero is shown to be flawed.

Paul,
Gandhi’s whole campaign depended on provoking violence from the British he succeeded admirably.
The Salt March is a good example,
Gandhi knew full well that it was a red rag to a bull and that there was every likelihood of lives being lost in a head on confrontation.
History could be counted upon to repeat itself, which it did, and he got World wide publicity; he was arrested but he knew full well that the Brits would never make a martyr of him.
So he used violence for his own ends.
I greatly admire him.