Gandhi's racism

[Property Is Robbery]

No one ever seems to mention it, and it's sad really because Martin Luther King Jr. saw him as a major inspiration. He was blatantly racist towards blacks. When writing in newspapers about India's situation as a colony of England he said that it was insulting for Indians to be comparable to the Africans living in English colonies. :glare: I just learned about this a couple months ago and it was pretty shocking so I thought I'd share it with you all.

[RedStarOverChina]

Yeah he joined the British army against the Boers in South Africa and kept a diary, if I recall correctly. In it he described South African blacks as "kaffir" and "barely human".

[L.A.P.]

Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight...the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause

I met his grandson and lives in the same area of New York that I'm from, He wrote a very controversial article on an editorial regarding the Jewish community and there was a family friend who was very close to him (know that she is half-Jewish and half-Asian) stopped talking to him for a while. When I ask the Indian side of my family they deny it but with uncertainty and acknowledge that he very well could have been a racist. They're still on good terms today and I do think he was a racist Indian nationalist when he was younger but towards his old age definitely not.

[Burn A Flag]

Speaking of Martin Luther King JR, he also had extra marital affairs. Just shows that these bourgeois glorified figures aren't really as perfect as portrayed.

[Property Is Robbery]

Speaking of Martin Luther King JR, he also had extra marital affairs. Just shows that these bourgeois glorified figures aren't really as perfect as portrayed.
Maybe so but they sure didn't glorify his ideas.

[StalinFanboy]

No one ever seems to mention it, and it's sad really because Martin Luther King Jr. saw him as a major inspiration. He was blatantly racist towards blacks. When writing in newspapers about India's situation as a colony of England he said that it was insulting for Indians to be comparable to the Africans living in English colonies. :glare: I just learned about this a couple months ago and it was pretty shocking so I thought I'd share it with you all.
Damn, if you think that's bad, you should read what he said about the Jews in WW2...

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

Yes, Gandhi hated Jews a lot more than he despised blacks. And he wasn't even particularly successful - it was the direct action campaigns that really worked. But the powers-that-be wanted to promote "non-violent" protests rather than admitting the dangerous truth about the success of direct action, and so they bigged up Gandhi and his role. A similar thing happened with MLK.

[Property Is Robbery]

Damn, if you think that's bad, you should read what he said about the Jews in WW2...

I couldn't find what you were talking about, I found anti-Zionist stuff but nothing anti-Semitic

[bricolage]

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."
"The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

They were both from a section on the political compass website, the second one is more about pacifism but is still pretty repulsive.

[RedStarOverChina]

I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.

And more infamously:

The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.
Also he once wrote an letter to Hitler calling him "dear friend".

I don't think Gandhi was really anti-sematic...But I do think he was incredibly stupid and spineless.

He did send his own unarmed, defenseless countrymen marching towards the police knowing full well the consequences. They were told not to resist or hit back, but only to endure.

[L.A.P.]

How many of you realize that Gandhi was a prominent figure in the anti-apartheid movement? To say that Gandhi was stupid and spineless and to say he really didn't do that much for the Indian independence movement is just plain stupid and ignorant of history in order to advance your own ideas. You're putting ideology over facts. Rosa Parks may have been arrested when she refused to move seats but that man was thrown off a train when he refused to move seats and beaten for not taking off his turban, but yet he's spineless?

[red cat]

I don't think Gandhi was really anti-sematic...But I do think he was incredibly stupid and spineless.



He was not stupid. He was a cunning agent of British imperialism. He was appointed to keep the masses away from the revolutionary forces.

[L.A.P.]

He was not stupid. He was a cunning agent of British imperialism. He was appointed to keep the masses away from the revolutionary forces.

*face palms*

[RedStarOverChina]

How many of you realize that Gandhi was a prominent figure in the anti-apartheid movement? To say that Gandhi was stupid and spineless and to say he really didn't do that much for the Indian independence movement is just plain stupid and ignorant of history in order to advance your own ideas. You're putting ideology over facts.
I didn't say he didn't do much. He did manage to keep himself busy during those days.

But we all know the reason India won it's independence was because it was the end of WWII. Eden's government simply couldn't afford another conflict, the British public had no stomach for it.

However, under normal circumstances, the British Empire would have no problem keep beating up defenseless, pacifist Indian protestors. It wasn't exactly a big deal to shoot brown people back then.

So Gandhi got a lot of credit for the Indian Independence, that does not mean he was responsible for it, or that his ideas were valid.

[bricolage]

I give critical but unconditional, military but not political, external but not internal... support to these paragraphs.


In India, the story goes, people under the leadership of Gandhi built up a massive nonviolent movement over decades and engaged in protest, noncooperation, economic boycotts, and exemplary hunger strikes and acts of disobedience to make British imperialism unworkable. They suffered massacres and responded with a couple of riots, but, on the whole, the movement was nonviolent and, after persevering for decades, the Indian people won their independence, providing an undeniable hallmark of pacifist victory. The actual history is more complicated, in that many violent pressures also informed the British decision to withdraw. The British had lost the ability to maintain colonial power after losing millions of troops and a great deal of other resources during two extremely violent world wars, the second of which especially devastated the "mother country." The armed struggles of Arab and Jewish militants in Palestine from 1945 to 1948 further weakened the British Empire, and presented a clear threat that the Indians might give up civil disobedience and take up arms en masse if ignored for long enough; this cannot be excluded as a factor in the decision of the British to relinquish direct colonial administration.

We realize this threat to be even more direct when we understand that the pacifist history of India's independence movement is a selective and incomplete picture-nonviolence was not universal in India. Resistance to British colonialism included enough militancy that the Gandhian method can be viewed most accurately as one of several competing forms of popular resistance. As part of a disturbingly universal pattern, pacifists white out those other forms of resistance and help propagate the false history that Gandhi and his disciples were the lone masthead and rudder of Indian resistance. Ignored are important militant leaders such as Chandrasekhar Azad, who fought in armed struggle against the British colonizers, and revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh, who won mass support for bombings and assassinations as part of a struggle to accomplish the "overthrow of both foreign and Indian capitalism."

The pacifist history of India's struggle cannot make any sense of the fact that Subhas Chandra Bose, the militant candidate, was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress, in 1938 and 1939. While Gandhi was perhaps the most singularly influential and popular figure in India's independence struggle, the leadership position he assumed did not always enjoy the consistent backing of the masses. Gandhi lost so much support from Indians when he "called off the movement" after the 1922 riot that when the British locked him up afterwards, "not a ripple of protest arose in India at his arrest."

Significantly, history remembers Gandhi above all others not because he represented the unanimous voice of India, but because of all the attention he was given by the British press and the prominence he received from being included in important negotiations with the British colonial government. When we remember that history is written by the victors, another layer of the myth of Indian independence comes unraveled.

The sorriest aspect of pacifists' claim that the independence of India is a victory for nonviolence is that this claim plays directly into the historical fabrication carried out in the interests of the white-supremacist, imperialist states that colonized the Global South. The liberation movement in India failed. The British were not forced to quit India. Rather, they chose to transfer the territory from direct colonial rule to neocolonial rule, What kind of victory allows the losing side to dictate the time and manner of the victors' ascendancy? The British authored the new constitution and turned power over to handpicked successors. They fanned the flames of religious and ethnic separatism so that India would be divided against itself, prevented from gaining peace and prosperity, and dependent on military aid and other support from Euro/American states.

India is still exploited by Euro/ American corporations (though several new Indian corporations, mostly subsidiaries, have joined in the pillaging), and still provides resources and markets for the imperialist states. In many ways the poverty of its people has deepened and the exploitation has become more efficient. Independence from colonial rule has given India more autonomy in a few areas, and it has certainly allowed a handful of Indians to sit in the seats of power, but the exploitation and commodification of the commons have deepened Moreover, India lost a clear opportunity for meaningful liberation from an easily recognizable foreign oppressor. Any liberation movement now would have to go up against the confounding dynamics of nationalism and ethnic/religious rivalry in order to abolish a domestic capitalism and government that are far more developed. On balance, the independence movement proves to have failed.

[red cat]

*face palms*

Please defend your position ?

[L.A.P.]

Please defend your position ?

This is what you sound like


Gandhi was an imperialist agent who secretly wanted to kill Indians by turning them into pacifists and getting killed because he was really just a British man who wore a costume to look Indian and it was all a bourgeois conspiracy to make pacifists look good-REACTIONARY-CAPITALIST-BOURGEOISIE-PROPAGANDA-LIBERAL.....*sentence starts to lose coherence and seizes to make sense while sounding utterly ridiculous*.

[red cat]

This is what you sound like

No, I don't sound like that. Why does anyone willing to harm the Indian masses have to be British ? There is enough evidence indicating that Gandhi was an agent of British imperialism.

[NKVD]

Ordinary Indians don't support that imperialist puppet Gandhi. Only the liberal elite does.

[red cat]

Ordinary Indians don't support that imperialist puppet Gandhi. Only the liberal elite does.

Actually many ordinary Indians will speak in favour of Gandhi. It is a result of years of brainwashing by the Indian ruling class.

[NKVD]

Actually many ordinary Indians will speak in favour of Gandhi. It is a result of years of brainwashing by the Indian ruling class.

Ahh yes. My parents left came to America a few decades ago, so I should say ordinary Indians used to oppose Gandhi.

[Imposter Marxist]

Rabid racist, and a prominent figurehead, whether he intended to be or not, for the Bourgeoisie. They help direct youthful revolutionaries into the area of pacifism, which castrates their revolutionary potential.

[RedStarOverChina]

Ahh yes. My parents left came to America a few decades ago, so I should say ordinary Indians used to oppose Gandhi.
Back when I was a teenager I met an old Indian revolutionary who told me Indians don't quite like him, and that he personally considered Gandhi a traitor. I wasn't 100% sure that I believed him, because we've all been bombarded with praises for Gandhi.

But I always knew he was at best, a naive and even servile person.

[red cat]

Back when I was a teenager I met an old Indian revolutionary who told me Indians don't quite like him, and that he personally considered Gandhi a traitor. I wasn't 100% sure that I believed him, because we've all been bombarded with praises for Gandhi.

But I always knew he was at best, a naive and even servile person.

A large portion of the Indian middle class used to oppose Gandhi when he was alive. However, presently almost all those who oppose Gandhi are either Hindu fundamentalists or radical leftists.

[Palingenisis]

Why do the Hindu fundamentalists oppose him?

[red cat]

Why do the Hindu fundamentalists oppose him?

Because he spoke for Hindu-Muslim harmony.

[gorillafuck]

I don't think that he was racist towards his older age, despite rampant racism when he was younger. On the other hand, his politics were terrible. He literally thought that Indians should just let themselves be gunned down and gassed by the British army. That's really fuckin' nuts. Also, he wasn't anti-capitalist so I don't see why he should receive anti-capitalist support.

[Milk Sheikh]

Gandhi was no racist any more than the young Che was racist. As young people, we all had weird ideas but as we grow up we change. So attacking a person based on a couple of things he said (as a younger man) is quite unfair.

Let's be more mature. Also if everyone had Gandhi's simplicity, the world would be a much better place.

[RedStarOverChina]

Gandhi was no racist any more than the young Che was racist. As young people, we all had weird ideas but as we grow up we change. So attacking a person based on a couple of things he said (as a younger man) is quite unfair.He was very racist in his youth, and that is excusable considering the circumstance.

What I find inexcusable is his willingness to respond to brutality with suicidal compliancy, on behalf of the oppressed.

He had no right to order Indians or Jews to fall on the sword for his own "pacifist" principles.


Let's be more mature. Also if everyone had Gandhi's simplicity, the world would be a much better place.If no one eats, there won't be famines.

But the world doesn't work that way. Weaving your own rag does nothing to discourage brutality.

[red cat]

Gandhi was no racist any more than the young Che was racist. As young people, we all had weird ideas but as we grow up we change. So attacking a person based on a couple of things he said (as a younger man) is quite unfair.

If being 40 is being young, then when does a man finally grow up ? In his death-bed I guess ?



Let's be more mature. Also if everyone had Gandhi's simplicity, the world would be a much better place.Sorry, everyone cannot have Gandhi's simplicity until there are at least a dozen women per man.

[Rousedruminations]

It is pretty disappointing because it is the first time i've heard that gandhi was rascist ? but so was Malcolm X ? though after going to Mecca he did mature a lot more. So maybe after, during his later years (older age) he did mature a little but not so far as to which i would greatly admire him.


I found this article on the ne, which gave me some solid points.


#1 - Don't let the emotion of who you believe Gandhi to be to get in the way of actual facts.

#2 - Gandhi was a Hindu. Hindus believe in the caste system which states that individuals are born into castes and this is where they live and die.

The caste is the bedrock of Hinduism. The Hindu term for caste is varna; which means arranging the society on a four-level hierarchy based on the skin color: The darker-skinned relegated to the lowest level, the lighter-skinned to the top three levels of the apartheid scale called the Caste System. The race factor underlies the intricate workings of Hinduism, not to mention the countless evil practices embedded within. Have no doubt, Gandhi loved the Caste system.

#3 - Gandhi's early struggle in south Africa was predicated on the idea that Europeans should treat Indians better than they did because the Indians were better than Blacks

#4 - Gandhi has many published quotes where he refers to South African Blacks as lazy and aimless.

#5 - His views softened somewhat as he grew older but his campaign of non-violence was for the equal treatment of Indians, not Blacks.

#6 - Just because he employed the amazing strategy of non-violence doesn't mean he advocated it for everyone.

#7 - Just because everyone employed his techniques of non-violence doesn't mean he approved of them, after all most who used his techniques came almost 20 - 40 years AFTER him.

#8 - Just because he was racist doesn't negate what he has done in the world, it only reaffirms the complicated ideals that occupy the human heart.

#9 - Just because your disappointed (as I was) to find this out, doesn't mean it isn't true.




Here are some disconcerting quotes though.


"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade 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."


"It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting - to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges."


"Clause 200 makes provision for registration of persons belonging to uncivilized races, resident and employed within the Borough. One can understand the necessity of registration of Kaffirs who will not work, but why should registration be required for indentured Indians who have become free, and for their descendants about whom the general complaint is that they work too much?"



I would probably say his morals were constructed socially give the time and culture he was brought up in, so that played a strong role in his younger youth and adult life.

[Property Is Robbery]

It is pretty disappointing because it is the first time i've heard that gandhi was rascist ? but so was Malcolm X ? though after going to Mecca he did mature a lot more. So maybe after, during his later years (older age) he did mature a little but not so far as to which i would greatly admire him.



Yeah but Malcolm X was racist because he was blinded by the Nation of Islam as well as being oppressed by white people his whole life. Three of his uncles were murdered by white men, and his family was forced to move because of threats from the KKK. Gandhi was never oppressed by Africans.

[Rousedruminations]

good point ! what largely shaped him was the caste system (inherently evil)

[Property Is Robbery]

good point ! what largely shaped him was the caste system (inherently evil)
Very true, but the article you posted said that the caste system is the basis of Hinduism, and this is simply not true. Maybe within a small minority of orthodox Hindus, but many reject it as Capitalists who move from a lower class upward, or even as Socialists who obviously reject a caste or class system.

[Rousedruminations]

hmm, i think the older generation of indians (to certain extent my mother) may have had an exerted effect of shaping the system of thinking their children may or may not adopt. Some of the younger generation indians have used the caste system as a form of banter (humor) on their part because of the color of my skin ( I am of the darker sort).This is an occaisional occurence at work where many North Indians do work . I see many North Indians (again those that are in the late 20's or there about) treat South Indians (of a darker skin color) condescendingly in the name of 'humor' as if they are of a superior nature and thus more intelligible according to the caste system which is the bedrock of hinduism. On the flip side, you are right my mother is a stubbornly orthodox hindu while my father isn't.

[red cat]

Very true, but the article you posted said that the caste system is the basis of Hinduism, and this is simply not true. Maybe within a small minority of orthodox Hindus, but many reject it as Capitalists who move from a lower class upward, or even as Socialists who obviously reject a caste or class system.

The main aim of Hinduism has always been to form a social justification for the tremendous feudal oppression in the Indian subcontinent. The caste system is the sole cause for the religion to exist in the first place. Rejecting it is not very easy until one is either high-caste or economically strong. While we see very few exceptions, most upper-caste Hindus staunchly believe in it. The lower castes are simply forced to obey the caste-laws, whether they like it or not.

[red cat]

Quotes from the collected works of Gandhi :


Before Dec. 19, 1894

“A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” ~ Vol. I, p. 193


Before May 5, 1895

“In the face, too, of financial operations, the success of which many of their detractors would envy, one fails to understand the agitation which would place the operators in the same category as the half-heathen Native and confine him to Locations, and subject him to the harsher laws by which the Transvaal Kaffir is governed.” ~ Vol. I, pp. 224-225


Before May 5, 1895

“When one reflects that the conception of Brahmanism, with its poetic and mysterious mythology, took its rise in the land of the ‘Coolie trader,’ that in that land 24 centuries ago, the almost divine Buddha taught and practised the glorious doctrine of self-sacrifice, and that it was from the plains and mountains of that weird old country that we have derived the fundamental truths of the very language we speak, one cannot but help regretting that the children of such a race should be treated as equals of the children of black heathendom and outer darkness. Those who, for a few moments, have stayed to converse with the Indian trader have been, perhaps, surprised to find they are speaking to a scholar and a gentleman…. And it is the sons of this Land of light who are despised as Coolies, and treated as Kaffirs.” ~ Vol. I, p. 225


Before May 5, 1895

“So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir.” ~ Vol. I, p. 229


Aug. 14, 1896

“The Attorney-General of Natal wants to keep the Indians for ever ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water.’ We are classed with the natives of South Africa - Kaffir race.” ~ Vol. I, p. 364


Sept. 26, 1896

“Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans, who desire to degrade 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.” ~ Vol. I, pp. 409-410


Sept. 26, 1896

“While, in other parts of South Africa, it is the railway officials who make the lot of the 1st and 2nd class passengers on the railway intolerable, the Transvaal people have gone one better in that there the law prohibits the Indians from travelling 1st or 2nd class. They are, irrespective of position, huddled together in the same compartment with the natives of South Africa.” ~ Vol. I, p. 415


Oct. 17, 1896

“A picnic party of European children used Indian and Kaffir boys as targets and shot bullets into their faces, hurting several inoffensive children. So deep-seated is the hatred that children have begun instinctively to look down upon Indians.” ~ Vol. I, p. 421


Oct. 26, 1896

“There is a bye-law in Durban which requires registration of coloured servants. This rule may be, and perhaps is, necessary for the Kaffirs who would not work, but absolutely useless with regard to the Indians. But the policy is to class the Indian with the Kaffir whenever possible.” ~ Vol. I, p. 435


Before May 27, 1899

“Your Petitioner has seen the Location intended to be used by the Indians. It would place them, who are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs, in close proximity to the latter.” ~ Vol. II, p. 270


Mar. 27, 1902

“All the anti-Indian laws in both the Colonies are in full force; under them, in the Transvaal, the Indians cannot own land or trade except in Locations, and must, like the Kaffirs, hold travelling and other passes.” ~ Vol. II, p. 453


Mar. 16, 1903

“The bye-law has its origin in the alleged or real, impudent and, in some cases, indecent behaviour of the Kaffirs. But, whatever the charges are against the British Indians, no one has ever whispered that the Indians behave otherwise than as decent men. But, as it is the wont in this part of the world, they have been dragged down with the Kaffir without the slightest justification.” ~ Vol. III, pp. 32-33


May 24, 1903

“The £3 tax is merely a penalty for wearing the brown skin and it would appear that, whereas Kaffirs are taxed because they do not work at all or sufficiently, we are to be taxed evidently because we work too much, the only thing in common between the two being the absence of the white skin.” ~ Vol. III, p. 74


Feb. 11, 1904

“I venture to write you regarding the shocking state of the Indian Location. The rooms appear to be overcrowded beyond description. The sanitary service is very irregular, and many of the residents of the Location have been to my office to complain that the sanitary condition is far worse than before. There is, too, a very large Kaffir population in the Location for which really there is no warrant.” ~ Vol. III, p. 427


Feb. 15, 1904

“I am extremely obliged to you for having paid a visit last Saturady to the Indian Location and for the interest you are taking in the proper sanitation of the site. The more I think of it, the uglier the situation appears to me, and I think that, if the Town Council takes up a position of non possumus, it will be an abdication of its function, and I do respectfully say that nothing can justify the Public Health Committee in saying that neither overcrowding nor insanitation could be helped. I feel convinced that every minute wasted over the matter merely hastens a calamity for Johannesburg and that through absolutely no fault of the British Indians. Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension.” ~ Vol. III, p. 428


Feb. 15, 1904

“Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.” ~ Vol. III, p. 429


Apr. 30, 1904

“The Orange River Colony has entirely closed its gates against the Indians from the Transvaal. The Cape and Natal admit him under severe restrictions which have no scientific meaning. For instance, an Indian may be sharing the same compartment with a Kaffir. As soon, however, as the train bringing the passengers reaches the Natal border, the Indian is obliged to undergo 5 days’ quarantine before entering the Colony, whereas the Kaffir is permitted to do so without let or hindrance.” ~ Vol. III, p. 482


Jan. 10, 1904

“A correspondent from Warmbaths in the Transvaal writes to us in Gujarati, complaining that the authorities do not provide facilities for British Indians to make use of these famous healing waters. He says that, if any Indian wants to make use of them, he is merely directed to go to the rooms set apart for the Kaffirs. It appears that he offered to build a place for Indians, but the offer was not entertained. We are sure that, if there is any truth in the statement made by our correspondent, the Government will remedy the difficulty at once, and provide suitable facility for those Indians who may wish to make use of these waters.” ~ Vol. IV, p. 88


Mar. 12, 1904

“In South Africa, on the other hand, there are things which the white man would not do, and the Kaffir could not do. It has, therefore, been possible for the Indians to live in South Africa.” ~ Vol. IV, p. 129


Mar. 29, 1905

“Thus, the whites have begun to feel the need for Indian labour right from the beginning, for the Kaffirs are of no use and all the available Chinese are absorbed in the mines. Indian labour, is, therefore, in general demand.” ~ Vol. IV, p. 258


Oct. 6, 1905

“In all this computation, Lord Milner has overlooked one fact, viz., that, while the Kaffir hardly works for six months, the Chinese have to do so continuously for three years. Moreover, the Chinese being more active than the Kaffirs, much more work can be taken from them than from the latter. This is a very important point, but His Lordship utters not a word about it. Unless this is taken into account, Lord Milner’s figures are of no use whatever.” ~ Vol. IV, p. 312


Oct. 21, 1905

“We humbly submit that the decision to open the school for all Coloured children is unjust to the Indian community, and is a departure from the assurance given by the then Minister of Education, as also Sir Albert Hime and Mr. Robert Russell, that the school will be reserved for Indian children only.” ~ Vol. IV, p. 402


Dec. 30, 1905

“It has, we suppose, become a recognised thing in South Africa for such labour agents to be appointed for ‘inducing Kaffirs to work.’ Some call such a system a gentle coaxing; others call it a modified form of forced labour. We cannot question the policy that has been sanctioned for a long time, and its criticism does not lie within our domain. Unfortunately, the term ‘Coloured person’ is, in the Orange River Colony, interpreted invariably to mean ‘all coloured persons, who, in accordance with laws or customs, are called Coloured persons, or are treated as such, of whatsoever race or nationality they may be.’ It, therefore, includes Asiatics, Malays and others. Both the above-mentioned Ordinances on that account are open to very serious objections, and we cannot understand why the studied insult implied should be irritatingly kept up. Lord Selborne, in his reply to the British Indian Association, has admitted that there are very few Asiatics in the Orange River Colony. Why, then, should the offensive definition be maintained? If it is, in practice, inoperative, the only reason for its existence can be for the wanton pleasure of the inhabitants of the Orange River Colony, who wish to triumph over this implied degradation of the Asiatic races.” ~ Vol. V, p. 50


June 1, 1906

“The Boer Government insulted the Indians by classing them with the Kaffirs.” ~ Vol. V, p. 59


Mar. 17, 1906

“The ousting of the Kaffirs from the Bazaar at Pretoria is wrong; for, whatever the law, Indians have for many years now earned rentals from Kaffir tenants. It behoves the Government to ensured that Indians do not suffer any loss on this account.” ~ Vol. V, p. 129


Apr. 14, 1906

“It is not for us to say whether the revolt of the Kaffirs is justified or not. We are in Natal by virtue of British power. Our very existence depends upon it. It is therefore our duty to render whatever help we can. There was a discussion in the Press as to what part the Indian community would play in the event of an actual war. We have already declared in the English columns of this journal that the Indian community is ready to play its part;1 and we believe what we did during the Boer War should also be done now. That is, if the Government so desires, we should raise an ambulance corps. We should also agree to become permanent volunteers, if the Government is prepared to give us the requisite training.” ~ Vol. V, pp. 179-180


May 22, 1906

“It was a gross injustice to seek to place Indians in the same class as the Kaffirs.” ~ Vol. V, p. 226


May 26, 1906

“You say that the Magistrate’s decision is unsatisfactory, because it would enable a person, however unclean, to travel by a tram and that even the Kaffirs would be able to do so. But the Magistrate’s decision is quite different. The Court has declared that the Kaffirs have no legal right to travel by the trams. And, according to tram regulations, those in an unclean dress or in a drunken state are prohibited from boarding a tram. Thanks to the Court’s decision, only clean Indians or Coloured people other than Kaffirs can now travel by the trams.” ~ Vol. V, p. 235


June 30, 1906

“We have to learn much from what the whites are doing in Natal. There is hardly any family from which someone has not gone to fight the Kaffir rebels. Following their example, we should steel our hearts and take courage. Now is the time when the leading whites want us to take this step; if we let go this opportunity, we shall repent later. We therefore urge all Indian leaders to do their duty to the best of their ability.” ~ Vol. V, p. 273


Before July 19, 1906

“As we were struggling along, we met a Kaffir who did not wear the loyal badge. He was armed with an assegai and was hiding himself. However, we safely rejoined the troops on the further hill, whilst they were sweeping with their carbines the bushes below.” ~ Vol. V, p. 278


Before July 19, 1906

“Troopers had to lead their horses, and the route was so long that we never seemed to reach the bottom. However, at about 12 o’clock we finished the day’s journey, with no Kaffirs to fight.” ~ Vol. V, p. 280


Sept. 9, 1906

“Even the half-castes and Kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the Government. The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out passes.” ~ Vol. V, p. 332


Nov. 16, 1906

“As you were good enough to show very great sympathy with the cause of British Indians in the Transvaal, may I suggest your using your influence with the Boer leaders in the Transvaal? I feel certain that they did not share the same prejudice against British Indians as against the Kaffir races but as the prejudice against Kaffir races in a strong form was in existence in the Transvaal at the time when the British Indians immigrated there, the latter were immediately lumped together with the Kaffir races and described under the generic term ‘Coloured people.’ Gradually the Boer mind was habituated to this qualification and it refused to recognize the evident and sharp distinctions that undoubtedly exist between British Indians and the Kaffir races in South Africa.” ~ Vol. VI, p. 95


Nov. 6, 1906

“Mr. Stead has boldly come out to give us all the help he can. He was therefore requested to write to the Boer leaders that they should not consider Indians as being on the same level as Kaffirs.” ~ Vol. VI, p. 112


Feb. 2, 1907

“It is certain that the Asiatic Ordinance will be re-introduced. When that happens, there should be only one thought in the mind of every Indian: never to accept such a law. And, if it is enforced, he will rather go to gaol than carry a pass like a Kaffir.” ~ Vol. VI, p. 257


Sept. 2, 1907

“From these views expressed by a White we have a lesson to learn: We must encourage the Whites too. It is a short-sighted policy to employ, through sheer niggardliness, a Kaffir for washing work. If we keep in view the conditions in this country and patronize the Whites, whenever proper and necessary, then every such White will serve as an advertisement for the Indian trader.” ~ Vol. VI, p. 276


June 4, 1907

“Are we supposed to be thieves or free-booters that even a Kaffir policeman can accost and detain us wherever we happen to be going?” ~ Vol. VI, p. 363


July 12, 1907

“If registration is made compulsory, there will be no difference between Indians and Kaffirs, and the neighbouring Colony will be tempted to adopt it as a precedent. It may also turn out to be a prelude to compulsory segregation in Coloured Locations.” ~ Vol. VII, p. 395


July 12, 1907

“There is again a rebellion of Kaffirs in Zululand. In view of this, hundreds of white troops have been dispatched. The Indian community must come forward at such a time without, however, thinking of securing any rights thereby. They must consider only the duty of the community. It is a common observation that when we attend to our duty, rights follow as a matter of course. It will be only proper for the Indian community to make the offer that was made last year. There is a move at present to levy a tax on those who do not enlist. The burden of this levy will fall on Indians alone; even though paying the tax, they will get no credit. We are, therefore, convinced in our minds that the Indian community should repeat its offer. We assume that there are many Indians now who will welcome such work enthusiastically. Those who went to the front last year can do so again. Most of them are seasoned people and familiar with the nature of the work. We very much hope that this work will be taken in hand without any delay.” ~ Vol. VII, p. 397


Dec. 12, 1907

“As to the plea that the Indian will not blend with the rest of the community, what is this but a re-statement of the old fable of the boy who stoned the toad as a punishment for its being a toad? The Indian of the Transvaal a branded a pariah by statute; he is treated as such in practice; regardless of the obvious terminological inexactitude, he is indiscriminately dubbed ‘coolie.’ One hears even in official circles such expressions as ‘coolie lawyer,’ ‘coolie doctor,’ ‘coolie merchant.’ His women are ‘coolie Marys.’ As has been already shown, he is accorded no place in the scheme of things, save on sufferance. He may not even own fixed property, although, curiously, he may be a mortgagee of such. He is even denied the not always obvious privilege of riding in the same municipal tramcars and Government railway carriages as his white fellow-colonists. His children are afforded no facilities for education except they attend the schools set apart for Kaffirs. Could there be less encouragement for the Indian ‘to blend’ and to associate himself more closely with the larger life of the community?” ~ Vol. VII, p. 445-446


Dec. 12, 1907

“Compulsory registration is recognised as signifying nothing less than the reduction of British Indians to the status of the Kaffir; as being more than likely of adoption as a precedent for anti-Indian legislation by the neighbouring colonies; and as a probable prelude to compulsory segregation in coloured locations.” ~ Vol. VII, p. 447


Feb. 2, 1908

“The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets.” ~ Vol. VIII, p. 167


July 3, 1908

“We were then Marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs. There, our garments were stamped with the letter ‘N,’ which meant that we were being classed with the Natives. We were all prepared for hardships, but not quite for this experience. 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. I then felt that Indians had not launched on passive resistance too soon. Here was further proof that the obnoxious law was intended to emasculate the Indians.” ~ Vol. VIII, p. 198


July 3, 1907

“Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!” ~ Vol. VIII, p. 199


Mar. 21, 1908

“It is thus clear that both Kaffirs and Europeans get food suited to their tastes. The poor Indians - nobody bothers about them! They cannot get the food they want. If they are given European diet, the whites will feel insulted. In any case, why should the gaol authorities bother to find out the normal Indian fare? There is nothing for it but to let ourselves be classed with the Kaffirs and starve.” ~ Vol. VIII, pp. 218-19


Jan. 16, 1909

“As soon as we rose the following day, I was taken to where the other prisoners were lodged, so that I had no chance to complain to the Governor about what had happened. I have, though, resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others.” ~ Vol. IX, p. 257


Jan. 16, 1909

“I observed with regret that some Indians were happy to sleep in the same room as the Kaffirs, the reason being that they hoped there for a secret supply of tobacco, etc. This is a matter of shame to us. We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life. Moreover, those who wish to sleep in the same room with them have ulterior motives for doing so. Obviously, we ought to abandon such notions if we want to make progress.” ~ Vol. IX, p. 257


Jan. 23, 1909

“Some of the prisoners are found to suffer from diseases like syphilis, and therefore everyone of them has his genitals examined. For this purpose, the prisoners are totally undressed, while being examined. Unlike the others, Kaffirs are kept standing undressed for nearly 15 minutes so as to save the physician’s time. Indian prisoners are made to lower their breeches only when the physician approaches them. The other garments have to be removed in advance. Almost every Indian resents having to lower his breeches, but most of them do not create any difficulty in the interest of our movement, though at heart they feel ill at ease. I told the physician about this.” ~ Vol. IX, p. 272


Jan. 23, 1909

“Prisons are generally kept very clean. If this were not so, there would be epidemics before long. But there is also lack of cleanliness in some respects. Blankets are constantly interchanged. A blanket that has been used by the dirtiest of Kaffirs may later fall to an Indian’s lot.” ~ Vol. IX, p. 274


Jan. 30, 1909

“First, why should we bear such hardships, submit ourselves, for instance, to the restrictions of gaol life, wear coarse and ungainly dress, eat food which is hardly food, starve ourselves, suffer being kicked by the warder, live among the Kaffirs, do every kind of work, whether we like it or not, obey a warder who is only good enough to be our servant, be unable to receive any friends or write letters, go without things that we may need, and sleep in company with robbers and thieves? Better die than suffer this. Better pay the fine than go to gaol.” ~ Vol. IX, p. 292


July 16, 1909

“The labour required of them is generally of a severe character. Indians who have never lifted a heavy weight or done any spadde work have been put to wheeling heavily loaded barrows, digging holes repairing roads, etc., side by side with Kaffir convicts of the worst type.” ~ Vol. IX, p. 422


Oct. 8, 1909

“We do not get there the food that we are used to, and are classified with the Kaffirs.” ~ Vol. X, p. 158


Dec. 2, 1910

“Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.” ~ Vol. X, p. 414


Mar. 10, 1911

“I do not think that there need be any worry about police officer. If the Regulations provide for Kaffir Police, we can fight the Regulations. Even in attacking the details of the Bill, I think we should be very careful not to trouble ourselves with what may be remedied by Regulation.” ~ Vol. XI, p. 266


http://gandhism.net/southafricanblacks.php

[Milk Sheikh]

Quotes from the collected works of Gandhi :



http://gandhism.net/southafricanblacks.php

Out of curiosity, where are all these 'quotes' from? How do we know someone didn't just make this up and attribute it to Gandhi? It is suspicious because how come these 'quotes' never showed up all this time? The British would've used them to tarnish Gandhi's image long time ago.

[red cat]

Out of curiosity, where are all these 'quotes' from? How do we know someone didn't just make this up and attribute it to Gandhi? It is suspicious because how come these 'quotes' never showed up all this time? The British would've used them to tarnish Gandhi's image long time ago.

Which one is your final line of defense ? Is it that Gandhi was racist but we should forgive him because he was allegedly "young" at that point of time, or is it that these quotes are false ?

Also, British imperialism had shown no intentions of tarnishing Gandhi's image after he started his "experiments" with celibacy. So, your theory of imperialists being rather inclined to do the same with his racist remarks doesn't stand much ground.

[Milk Sheikh]

Which one is your final line of defense ? Is it that Gandhi was racist but we should forgive him because he was allegedly "young" at that point of time, or is it that these quotes are false ?

Also, British imperialism had shown no intentions of tarnishing Gandhi's image after he started his "experiments" with celibacy. So, your theory of imperialists being rather inclined to do the same with his racist remarks doesn't stand much ground.

There's no need to be so confrontational. It is just weird that these 'quotes' show up now and not in the 30s or 40s or earlier. Are you not a little surprised by this?

[red cat]

There's no need to be so confrontational. It is just weird that these 'quotes' show up now and not in the 30s or 40s or earlier. Are you not a little surprised by this?

It would have fully served the interests of British imperialists to not have allowed them to be published at that time. The sources are the collected works of Gandhi which I haven't found yet. Here is what Gandhi writes in his autobiography describing an incident where he was kicked off a foot-path in South Africa:


"What does the poor man know? All coloured people are the same to him. He no doubt treats Negroes just as he has treated me. I have made it a rule not to go to court in respect of any personal grievance. So I do not intend to proceed against him."Emphasis mine.

Interestingly enough, his autobiographical accounts of South Africa do not mention any significant interaction with any African. This is very odd for a normal person who stayed there that long.

[Milk Sheikh]

It would have fully served the interests of British imperialists to not have allowed them to be published at that time.

So Britain went through so much trouble protecting Gandhi even though the latter was against them. Yeah, makes sense.:rolleyes:


The sources are the collected works of Gandhi which I haven't found yet.

So we have no proof, then.


Here is what Gandhi writes in his autobiography describing an incident where he was kicked off a foot-path in South Africa:
Emphasis mine.

Interestingly enough, his autobiographical accounts of South Africa do not mention any significant interaction with any African. This is very odd for a normal person who stayed there that long.

Still no proof of racism. The guy doesn't interact much - big deal. His wording may be poor - again no proof of racism.

[red cat]

So Britain went through so much trouble protecting Gandhi even though the latter was against them. Yeah, makes sense.:rolleyes:


Gandhi was not against British imperialism. For most of his life he publicly maintained that the British Raj was beneficial for Indians. Most of his political activities were directed towards recruiting Indians to fight for Britain against other powers, and preaching non-violence as soon as Indians would start fighting against their British oppressors.



So we have no proof, then.



Still no proof of racism. The guy doesn't interact much - big deal. His wording may be poor - again no proof of racism.

Gandhi was an excellent author and his wording is very clear and expressive of his feelings in this case.

[red cat]

Certain volumes of the collected works of Gandhi are available in wikisource.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_Mahatma_Gandhi

The quotes that I had posted earlier do appear in the volumes concerned, whenever they are available. Unfortunately, the volumes concerned are not available in scanned form, but some other volumes are, in this (http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%28collection%3Amillionbooks%20OR %20mediatype%3Amillionbooks%29%20AND%20-mediatype%3Acollection%20AND%20firstCreator%3AN&sort=-avg_rating%3B-num_reviews&page=4) site.

Though the scanned volumes that are available are those from the periods when Gandhi did not make any racist remarks, I have compared them with the wikisource articles, and they match word to word. It will be reasonable to assume that the other volumes are accurate as well.

[ZeroNowhere]

So Britain went through so much trouble protecting Gandhi even though the latter was against them.This was not the 21st Century. British politicians could also advocate imperial rule over India without causing much of an uproar, and did not go to much trouble to hide this intention of theirs where it was present. As RC pointed out, Gandhi's experiments with celibacy would have been more scandalous.


Maybe within a small minority of orthodox Hindus, but many reject it as Capitalists who move from a lower class upward, or even as Socialists who obviously reject a caste or class system.The first part of this isn't strictly true. Caste still plays quite an important part in India, and indeed I have on occasion been allowed into rooms, etc, solely due to being a Brahmin. While it isn't quite as blatant in the mainstream, it does retain some influence over political discourse, but although less widespread I'm not sure that it could simply be confined to a 'small minority'.

[L.A.P.]

Yeah but Malcolm X was racist because he was blinded by the Nation of Islam as well as being oppressed by white people his whole life. Three of his uncles were murdered by white men, and his family was forced to move because of threats from the KKK. Gandhi was never oppressed by Africans.

Whenever Indians were oppressed by European people, I would notice that they would try to disassociate themselves form other minorities and tried to be cool and conform with the white people. I was quite disgusted with this but I noticed that this is how Indian people usually act when they are discriminated against, they try to kiss the asses of the people discriminating them which is probably what Gandhi did in his younger years.

[red cat]

Whenever Indians were oppressed by European people, I would notice that they would try to disassociate themselves form other minorities and tried to be cool and conform with the white people. I was quite disgusted with this but I noticed that this is how Indian people usually act when they are discriminated against, they try to kiss the asses of the people discriminating them which is probably what Gandhi did in his younger years.

Not Indian "people", only a very small minority of Indians; the class enemies of the Indian masses.

[BeerShaman]

No one ever seems to mention it, and it's sad really because Martin Luther King Jr. saw him as a major inspiration. He was blatantly racist towards blacks. When writing in newspapers about India's situation as a colony of England he said that it was insulting for Indians to be comparable to the Africans living in English colonies. :glare: I just learned about this a couple months ago and it was pretty shocking so I thought I'd share it with you all.
Well, yes he was an ethnicist too, or so they say. It's great shame. However with this phrase he might have meant that it's a shame for the Indians living in India like slave-immigrants. You know what I mean. It's a bit reactionnary anyway...:closedeyes:

[BeerShaman]

A nationalist, I mean...

[Milk Sheikh]

Not Indian "people", only a very small minority of Indians; the class enemies of the Indian masses.

I think XX is right. I've lived overseas for many years and noticed this kind of behavior from nonwhites in general, and Indians in particular. In fact, I also notice such behavior from Indians in India. Sad but true.

[Milk Sheikh]

Back to topic, I still feel that the world would be much better if people were more like Gandhi - living on bare minimum necessities, sharing, giving, self-perfection etc. These good qualities could definitely help in the future - because only such people are going to be the foundation of a socialist revolution. I simply cannot envision petty, cruel, greedy people even considering socialism, much less fighting for it.

[red cat]

I think XX is right. I've lived overseas for many years and noticed this kind of behavior from nonwhites in general, and Indians in particular. In fact, I also notice such behavior from Indians in India. Sad but true.

The Indians who make it to the west mostly come from the upper middle or upper classes, who are class enemies of the broad Indian masses more often than not. In India itself, these upper classes lick the boots of western imperialism, claim to be Aryans or whites etc. This is totally contrary to the behaviour of an average Indian lower peasant or proletarian.

[Milk Sheikh]

The Indians who make it to the west mostly come from the upper middle or upper classes, who are class enemies of the broad Indian masses more often than not. In India itself, these upper classes lick the boots of western imperialism, claim to be Aryans or whites etc. This is totally contrary to the behaviour of an average Indian lower peasant or proletarian.

Have you ever been to India? I am talking about the average Indian, not upper or middle class people. I live among them, so I have the chance to observe them every day. And when I do, I realize that there's not much difference between various classes when it comes to behavior: they all act the same way, more or less. The poor, the rich, north Indians, south Indians - they all display the traits which XX described.

[red cat]

Back to topic, I still feel that the world would be much better if people were more like Gandhi - living on bare minimum necessities, sharing, giving, self-perfection etc. These good qualities could definitely help in the future - because only such people are going to be the foundation of a socialist revolution. I simply cannot envision petty, cruel, greedy people even considering socialism, much less fighting for it.

The flaws in characters of individual workers are almost totally caused by capitalist oppression. It is this class of flawed, desperate men that will make revolution, not any ideal purified saviour.

If you want a good example on the basis of personal character, then why even consider Gandhi ? That man was a polygamous racist agent of British imperialism. Moreover his standard of living was actually much more lavish than that of an average Indian. There are much better examples to follow.

[red cat]

Have you ever been to India? I am talking about the average Indian, not upper or middle class people. I live among them, so I have the chance to observe them every day. And when I do, I realize that there's not much difference between various classes when it comes to behavior: they all act the same way, more or less. The poor, the rich, north Indians, south Indians - they all display the traits which XX described.

Your conclusion is absolutely false. Either your analysis is biased or your observation is limited due to lack of proper interaction with different classes.

[Milk Sheikh]

Your conclusion is absolutely false. Either your analysis is biased or your observation is limited due to lack of proper interaction with different classes.

*Sigh*

I report what I see. Working class Indians consider whites to be rich and therefore superior. Upper and middle class Indians consider whites superior because of their conquests and industrial development. As you can see, Indians of all classes have the same perception and suck up to whites.

The basic mentality of all Indians is more or less the same. I've seen porters and security guards (and other working Indians) treat rich Indians like c**p and white people (even those who weren't rich) like royalty. How would you explain this?

[red cat]

*Sigh*

I report what I see. Working class Indians consider whites to be rich and therefore superior. Upper and middle class Indians consider whites superior because of their conquests and industrial development. As you can see, Indians of all classes have the same perception and suck up to whites.

The basic mentality of all Indians is more or less the same. I've seen porters and security guards (and other working Indians) treat rich Indians like c**p and white people (even those who weren't rich) like royalty. How would you explain this?

Totally false and anti-Marxist. The Indian working class hates its oppressors. They treat white tourists like "royalty" because a single dollar means a lot to an Indian worker who struggles to feed his family. Moreover, they have more reason to hate oppressing Indians than foreign tourists because the latter are in no way directly involved in oppressing them.

The fact that the oppressed Indian masses were always free of the boot-licking tendency that characterizes their oppressing compatriots is illustrated by the general hatred or reverse-racism towards whites during the nationalist struggles, when rebellious Indians would describe whites as red-faced monkeys, or occasionally the British imperialists and their Indian compradors as "the white elephant and its black mahout". Even now, there are certain words which simultaneously mean white, well off and oppressor, and are frequently used by the most oppressed classes of Indians.

[L.A.P.]

claim to be Aryans or whites

Um...Indian people aren't Aryans but we definitely are what the dictionary definition of what being "white" is or caucasian, Arabs and Jews are caucasian too and most Hispanic people. Just because they state simple facts doesn't make them pro-Western imperialist.

[ZeroNowhere]

Indians also tend to charge white people more for goods. In fact, I've seen white tourists being asked for up to five times more money than me as an initial price for the same product. Here is a suggestion as to why: they generally have more money, and therefore people, especially poor people and people like security guards and porters, try to get more money from them. Shocking, I know. God knows what it has to do with Gandhi, though.


Um...Indian people aren't Aryans but we definitely are what the dictionary definition of what being "white" is or caucasian, Arabs and Jews are caucasian too and most Hispanic people. Just because they state simple facts doesn't make them pro-Western imperialist.Well, that's a useful dictionary definition that hardly anybody actually uses.


Back to topic, I still feel that the world would be much better if people were more like Gandhi - living on bare minimum necessities, sharing, giving, self-perfection etc. These good qualities could definitely help in the future - because only such people are going to be the foundation of a socialist revolution. I simply cannot envision petty, cruel, greedy people even considering socialism, much less fighting for it.How far we have fallen from Shelley's 'rustic Miltons'.

[The Red Next Door]

Interesting, but i am not surprise though.

[red cat]

Um...Indian people aren't Aryans but we definitely are what the dictionary definition of what being "white" is or caucasian, Arabs and Jews are caucasian too and most Hispanic people. Just because they state simple facts doesn't make them pro-Western imperialist.

I don't think that all Indians, or most Indians can in any way be classified as Aryans.

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/tribals/7412.jpg


http://www.daijiworld.com/images1/praj_061508_man19.jpg

You will notice that most Indians who claim to be Aryans display many non-Aryan features. They don't claim to be Aryans to "state simple facts". They do so to identify with who they think to be superior to all other Indian communities. And these Indians are mostly from the economically well off classes. It might sound silly, but try to chat with an Indian in some chat site; I guarantee that almost always you will come across one that will pretend to be white.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think that they were saying that we aren't Aryans, but are white. I don't blame you for giving them the benefit of the doubt, however.

[red cat]

I think that they were saying that we aren't Aryans, but are white. I don't blame you for giving them the benefit of the doubt, however.

What does it mean to be white while not being Aryan ? Even if it makes any sense, I assure you that racist Indians who claim to be white also identify themselves as Aryans.

[Property Is Robbery]

The main aim of Hinduism has always been to form a social justification for the tremendous feudal oppression in the Indian subcontinent. The caste system is the sole cause for the religion to exist in the first place. Rejecting it is not very easy until one is either high-caste or economically strong. While we see very few exceptions, most upper-caste Hindus staunchly believe in it. The lower castes are simply forced to obey the caste-laws, whether they like it or not.

When Hinduism first originated in India around 500 B.C.E. It was based off the Vedic religion and didn't have the purpose of creating varnas (castes) as the main goal. Like with other religions where societies were agriculturally advanced the Indians had many gods to ask for things and to try to blame natural disasters on them. Now while in the Hindu creation story varnas were created they have not always been around in India's history.


What does it mean to be white while not being Aryan ? Even if it makes any sense, I assure you that racist Indians who claim to be white also identify themselves as Aryans.
A people called Dravidians lived in the Indus Valley and had a well established civilization around 2300 B.C.E, around 2,000 B.C.E. a people called Aryans, a Sanskrit word, came from central asia and setlled in the Indus Valley, the combination of these two groups cultures and religions eventually led to Hinduism and today's Indian society.

They might claim they have pure lineage to these nomads who settled in India, which explains the lack of blond hair and blue eyes

[red cat]

When Hinduism first originated in India around 500 B.C.E. It was based off the Vedic religion and didn't have the purpose of creating varnas (castes) as the main goal. Like with other religions where societies were agriculturally advanced the Indians had many gods to ask for things and to try to blame natural disasters on them. Now while in the Hindu creation story varnas were created they have not always been around in India's history.


A people called Dravidians lived in the Indus Valley and had a well established civilization around 2300 B.C.E, around 2,000 B.C.E. a people called Aryans, a Sanskrit word, came from central asia and setlled in the Indus Valley, the combination of these two groups cultures and religions eventually led to Hinduism and today's Indian society.

At the point where this "combination" took place to form Hinduism as we know it now, the caste system had already been brought in to keep the enslaved Dravidians socially subdued.



They might claim they have pure lineage to these nomads who settled in India, which explains the lack of blond hair and blue eyes

Did the Aryans not have blond hair and blue eyes ? Then how do you explain these two features, very rarely though, occurring in Indians ?

[RedStarOverChina]

Did the Aryans not have blond hair and blue eyes ? Then how do you explain these two features, very rarely though, occurring in Indians ?
The word Aryan was a linguistic term (it still is) until the popularization of modern racism, describing groups of people who spoke Indo-Iranian languages.

Because the Nazis usurped the term and made it the "master race" and whatnot, nationalists of various origins have jump on the bandwagon.

To be fair, many of them have much more legitimate claim to the word "Aryan" than the Germans. The Iranians have called themselves Aryans for centuries, for example.

[red cat]

The word Aryan was a linguistic term (it still is) until the popularization of modern racism, describing groups of people who spoke Indo-Iranian languages.

Because the Nazis usurped the term and made it the "master race" and whatnot, nationalists of various origins have jump on the bandwagon.

To be fair, many of them have much more legitimate claim to the word "Aryan" than the Germans. The Iranians have called themselves Aryans for centuries, for example.

Agreed. But I think that given the present state of the society and the historical events throughout the last century, if anyone claims to be Aryan, then rather than analyzing how much legitimate claim he has to that word, we can be sure that he has most rightfully claimed the word "racist". :lol:

[MarxistRevolution]

Speaking of Martin Luther King JR, he also had extra marital affairs. Just shows that these bourgeois glorified figures aren't really as perfect as portrayed.

Yes he did but all men have faults. This doesn't change all the good he did. He fought for the rights of the oppressed and I remember him for that. Not for his faults.