Gandhi thought black people were subhuman

Gandhi’s desire for Indians to be segregated from blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24

It's pakistani news site.

It's pakistani news site.

Does that automatically make it wrong? Should I view all Pakistani sites as wrong or incorrect or non-factual?

Baron Max

A Pakistani site should be viewed as biased against Indians. However the caste system is a component of Hinduism, and is inherently racist. Ghandi is known to have made some racist comments in his lifetime but considering his contributions to the civil rights movement, I think he can be forgiven. He is a problematic character to be sure.

Ghandi is known to have made some racist comments in his lifetime but considering his contributions to the civil rights movement, I think he can be forgiven. Can you forgive us whitey's too?

It's pakistani news site.
Check out this GOOGLE search, there are plenty of article's on this issue.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ghandi+racist.&btnG=Google+Search

Take your pick.

Which one? You? No.

Can you forgive us whitey's too?
You? Hell no. You are aggressive, assertive, and blatant with your racism, which you continue to shout about.
The vast majority of white people can be forgiven, however, as it was ingrained through systematic abuse and indocrination or were the effects of a bygone era of prejudging and fearing what they did not know.

This drama seems to start with B. R. Ambedkar versus Gandhi.

Velu Annamalai, the source of this spin on Gandhi is an intelectual heir to Ambedekar and the liberation of Dalits movement. Velu Annamalai was Indian/Tamil but moved to New Orleans. I think their is some truth to what Annamalai said about Gandhi but it is also an exaggeration and takes Gandhi's life out of context. Gandhi was working within the South African dynamic. Gandhi in 1940 was not the same person that Gandhi in 1904 was. Life changed him.

More on the subject:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7lk6PUazLyQJ:www.pakcricbuzz.com/index.php%3FPHPSESSID%3D3619bd845f98037212a
2bc509eb22941%26topic%3D4773%3Bprev_next%3Dnext+%2 2Velu+Annamalai%22&hl=en

More on Ambedkar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.R._Ambedkar

Like J.B. Pakistanis hostile to India may have their own warped reasons for enjoying Annamalai's twist on Gandhi.

As for the "Gandhi thought black people were subhuman" line that is J.B. on his own. The source he quotes does not go that far.

J.B. wants to use Gandhi to demean blacks. India hating Pakistanis want to demean Gandhi as a way of demeaning India. My guess is Annamalai wants to demean Gandhi as a way of elevating Ambedkar and demeaning the Congress party. The idea being that the Congress party does not go far enough in protecting Dalits from the BJP and therefore Dalits must organize for themselves separately from the Congress Party power structure.

As for the "Gandhi thought black people were subhuman" line that is J.B. on his own. The source he quotes does not go that far.

"Gandhi thought black people were subhuman"

That is a direct quote from the article:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24

It is no suprise whatsoever , Ghandi was an out and out racist....though i can see jb using that fact to somehpw justify his own racist views......let me give you another flav of old dead Ghandi....where he was coming rom. i havenotes about it but fuk knows where they are

He believed in the Upanishadian philosophy of a 'One' and 'Many'. thelatter was supposedly according o that belief system the real, and to which everyone/thig 'must' return, and the 'Many' was all the multiplicity of life andthe different peoples and individual asirations etc--all that he and his philosophy beliefved was illusion 'Maya'. so he was a dualist, and looked down on material reality wit its diversity

As wit any patriarchal belief system, it has to havea scapegoat. some tingOsP tat makes it feel itself to be superior. And THEmain tigs the ptriarchal mindset fears is the night/dark/dark skin and women and Nature...! hence his potted belief in the superiority of the LIGHT-skinned aryans an the inferiority of the DARK-skinned peoples........also check his asceticism. this is anothe indication of that mindset/ which tends to not favour the fruits of the Eart including sensuality, but likes to dream about some 'pure' state 'AFTERlife'.....so al his talk abot 'peace' etc was as phony as his belief, whic as we see was no better than any other out and out racist scum. int that right jb?

meant to say at beginning of the post above--"the former was believed to be the real--ie., the 'One'"...always get me latters and formers...

it is my opinion tht duendy eats green peppers from papa johns and farts while he writes his post (yea i am flaming you, directly

first of all: LEARN THE FREAKIN' SPELLINGS OF GANDHI,IT IS NOT GHANDI DAMMIT

AND NO GANDHI WAS NOT A RACIST.

peace.
Rick

Sorry J.B.

Your right, that line was there in the headline. Nothing that extreme was in the arcticle. Nothing that extreme was in the other article that the article the you linked to was writen about. The source behind the article that your linked article was about never says anything bad about Africans because his intent is to try to make a case for Gandhi being racist as a means to undermine Gandhi.

The reason he needs to undermine Gandhi is that when India was being formed Gandh was saying "Everybody is good, let's ignor every issue that devides us and be one large united country." Many factions on many issues were saying, "what, are you out of your mind Gandhi? Everybody is not good and we are not willing to be a united country if we are not guaranteed that those other bad people will not be allowed to mistreat us." Hindu fundamentalists wanted to (and still want to) create a Hindu nation. The source behind these articles comes from the political camp of Dr. Ambedekar who wanted protection for the untouchables. Gandhi in order to not lose the support of other Hindus could not support that much protection for Dalits.

it is my opinion tht duendy eats green peppers from papa johns and farts while he writes his post (yea i am flaming you, directly

first of all: LEARN THE FREAKIN' SPELLINGS OF GANDHI,IT IS NOT GHANDI DAMMIT


Duendy, I make the same mistake myself. I am dyslexic. It is hard for me to have my writing not come out looking sloppy.

I don't like taking the time to get my spelling right; but I know that some people will just assume that my ideas worthless if my spelling or sentence stucture is a mess. You often take the time to write. I assume you want people to think about what you are saying. On some threads your writing is almost unreadable. I think that in general you should try a little harder to make your writing easier to read. Misspelling Ghandi doesn't seem to me to be as big a problem as some of the other things that happen in your writing.

Your use of "............." rarely helps your writing. In American writing, "..........." Usually means that you are quoting somebody but are warning your reader that you are leaving out a section of their writing. The "........" is put in the place at which you have skipped over a section of your sources words.

The other understood use of "............" is considered sloppy but can be OK in informal writing. When one sentence implys or leads to more ideas that you don't want to take the time to express the "........." replaces "you can see where this line of thinkig leads to." or"do you know what I mean?". If the "......" is not replacing some obvious thoughts, then you really should not use the "........".


Let's look at this: "let me give you another flav of old dead Ghandi....where he was coming rom. i havenotes about it but fuk knows where they are"

I remember you said your keyboard is small, but are you reading Sciforums and writing your posts on a cellphone? I really missed the "f" in from. that missing "f" messed with my head for a few seconds. To meet the writing snobs half way on the above text the you should have at least put a space between "have" and "notes". Putting a "." at the end of the second sentence would have been easy even on a cell phone.

I think this: "let me give you another flav of old dead Ghandi, on where he was coming from." would have been easier to read than using the ".........." thing of yours.

Dropping the "or" off of flavor is OK if the street feeling of flav really matters to you and is sort of ok if your typing on a cell phone but otherwise you should add the "or" to flav. Guys like me make enough mistakes even when we do try to write correctly. It would be almost a form of rudeness if I made no effort to be readable and then expected somebody to read my writing. We should at least try a little bit if we want anybody to read us.

((so as not to disrail tis thread for a personal ENGLISH lesson, i will just say this, which i have explained elsewhere. my system is notthe same asyours. it is a VERY limited set top igital box, which cuts me off from Web after short time; my friggin keyboard is tiny, with symbols on reverse sides, andreally hard to use; i cant type that good anyhow; i usually write with a passion , and improvise as i go, trying to get ideas out; if i look up ad see a type or misspellin i have to go baci a click at aa fukin time which means my times going.....etc. so i say to you'll who struggle. so dnt read then. anything but patronize.....others say they have no problems wid it.so. the end)))

regarding the SUBJECT. forthehostile one who obvioulsy worships Gandhi. bot just spew venon, explain why i am wrong and you are right. THA is debate....not just throwing insults at peops