Gandi-Communist?

[bemalech]

Was Gandhi really a communist revolutiony like Che. He united all the working class (which was pretty much all of the populatoin thanks to england) to rise up against the oppressing government and rule themselves.

Lennin got rid of the oppressing government so that the working class could take back their country. Che did the same for cuba. Ganhi may have used much more peacefull tactics but he was essentially trying to achieve the same thing.

[redstar2000]

I've never heard any evidence that Gandhi was any kind of a communist.

I think that he was in favor of traditional village life in India--perhaps a Jeffersonian more than anything else.

But if someone knows better, I'm willing to be instructed.

:cool:


(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:23 pm on May 29, 2003)

[Conghaileach]

The Myth of Mahatma Ghandi (http://www.howcomyoucom.com/articles/nov282000.htm)

This webpage has haunted me for some time now. It claims that he was racist and loyal to imperialism. It's hard to tell if this is a baseless attack on Ghandi, considering how well we all know the media can do their work.

[lostsoul]

I think this guy took some truthful stuff and twisted it alot.
Yes Gandhi did always say he was loyal to the british, in my opinion it was for two reasons
1) if he said "fuck the british..lets kill them" their would be alot of blood shed. Indians outnumbered british greatly(i think india is the only country in history to be controled by so few).
2) As a student in London, he learned about Britain firsthand and he liked what he saw. He met many kind people and heard many good idea's(such as freedom, peace..etc). So when he says he was loyal to the british empire, he really was saying he was loyal to their orginal beliefs(and he also believed the queen(or kind..i forget) was true to these beliefs too) thats why he used to sing "God save the queen(or king..i forget)". But all those people who were trying to control south africa and india, he saw as basically traitors to the british empire but yet he saw them as his brothers/sisters. Thats why he didn't want to hurt them, yet wanted to bring to their attention they were doing something wrong. He believed many of those people did keep the orginal british values and were blinded by their greed.

This is my interiptation of this..i remember this is mentioned in his autobiography "my expirment with the truth". You will understand a bit better his concept of treating everyone with respect and calling people who attack you and beat you, your brother/sister.


On the subject of him treating blacks differently, i have read in many places that he would take their cases for free, and always befriend them.

they said "He was all in favor of continuation of White domination and the oppression of Blacks in South Africa." I can't even urgue this, its too stupid. Every single act in his life contridicts this statement.


they said "When he was fighting on behalf of Indians, he was not fighting for all the Indians, but only for his rich merchant class upper caste Hindus!" Wrong!, the main people whom he enjoyed talking and discussing things with was muslims and christans(he had many highly powerful christian friends, and also attended chruch a few times), he respected them and enjoyed hearing their views. From my study of him, i cannot find one place where he did anything based on race or religion. Some white girl friend bitian(the daughter of someone famous..i forgot..maybe a general or lord) joined him in his struggle and lived with his family. In india when he basically became the leader of the indian congres, he allowed everyone to join(although the muslims had a group called the "muslim league" that was only decated to muslims).

Most of this guys quotes are extremely out of context. Some of them i agree he said, but definally not with the meaning that the auther is suggesting.

take care

[lostsoul]

"Gandhi joined in the orgy of Zulu slaughter when the Bambata Rebellion broke out. One needs to read the entire history of Bambata Rebellion to place Gandhi's nazi war crimes in its proper perspective."

He joined the British army when the british military slaughteed the zulu's, but he did not fight. He started the "indian medicaial corps"(or something like that name.). The zulu had no weopens, just spares and sticks and very basic weopens. British killed them with machine guns, and rifles.

Therfore Gandhi could not help the British as a medical officer, since basically none of them died or were wounded. He took it on himself to care for the zulu wounded, that were left to die on the battle field. Him and his fellow workers would put them on strethers, and take them about 2 miles to the base(i think its 2 miles..but check some books for the actual number), and care for them. The british officers there didn't want him to protect the zulu, and did stuff to him(i think sabaged some of his equipment, and just called him names).

Only reason he continued was because he knew people who smptized with his cause in england and therfore no one could really fire him.

But according to his autobiograpy he says that was on of the turning points of his life where he stopped unconditionally being loyal to britain itself.


I hope this helps clear up somestuff.

take care

[atlanticche]

Gandi was't a communist but a true revolutionary
he wanted to be free from the ludicrous rules of the British empire where he was nothing but had grew in Britain where he wasn't exactly somebody
he didn't have a voice
but he was given the childhood as if he was a child of a British buisness man politician and so on

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Of course Gandhi wasn't a Communist.

How much more evidence do you need than that of his actual word?

Gandhi just wanted freedom from the brutal empire rule. Someone mentioned that he said he respected the King and sang the anthem and what not, but that's because Gandhi encouraged forgiveness and respect for everyone...even the nation which brutalised his own people.

Gandhi chose not to align himself to any particular political belief. Unless the liberation of a people is a political belief. He was just a freedom fighter. He begged the people to be forgiving to their enemies and that is why he preached respect for the British..it was not the "twisted" truth as someone said.

The subject isn't up for debate...Gandhi was not a Communist. I think I read before someone calling him a "Liberal Socialist"...Even this is not true. Maybe the former part of that name is, but not the latter. He wasn't a politician. Maybe he was theoretically, but he never actually was. Just held positions.

[Comrade Gorley]

Most of the people I've talked to have said that Gandhi was just a wimp who wanted attention, and to be honest I agree. He genuinely sounded like a less-than-sober babbler you'd meet sitting in an alleyway. Yes, he made a handful of wise remarks, but really, most of them just sounded drunk/stoned. And he didn't really achieve much, either. At best, he was a nice guy, but at worst (and I'm looking into this possibility) he was just a phony who wanted to be remembered.

Anyway, I'm with Muetre- it doesn't matter and isn't up for discussion.

(Edited by Comrade Gorley at 10:06 pm on May 11, 2003)

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Comrade Gorley on 10:05 pm on May 11, 2003
Most of the people I've talked to have said that Gandhi was just a wimp who wanted attention, and to be honest I agree. He genuinely sounded like a less-than-sober babbler you'd meet sitting in an alleyway. Yes, he made a handful of wise remarks, but really, most of them just sounded drunk/stoned. And he didn't really achieve much, either. At best, he was a nice guy, but at worst (and I'm looking into this possibility) he was just a phony who wanted to be remembered.

Anyway, I'm with Muetre- it doesn't matter and isn't up for discussion.

(Edited by Comrade Gorley at 10:06 pm on May 11, 2003)


he didn't achieve much..just took on one of the worlds most powerful nations at the time, using non-voilence.

Can you please post some proof of your allagations? specific events? I'm sure your not some idiot who speaks without knowing, so please share your information so everyone on this board can know the truth about gandhi too.

thanks

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I mirror lostsouls' sentiments...

Dude, how can you possibly say Gandhi acheived nothing??!? In my opinion, Gandhi's was the greatest acheivment of the 20th century. He succesfully drove the mighty British Empire out of his country without any violence whatsoever.

There's no point asking you to back up what you have said because, quite simply, you cannot. Unless you lie of course.

[Comrade Gorley]

First off, I'll admit it, I worded it poorly. I SHOULD have said, "He didn't do much in my opinion". I apologize for that right off the bat.

However, I very much doubt that Gandhi was single-handed in driving out the British. (In my opinion) Britain simply lost interest in India. I don't deny that Gandhi was a signifagent part of it, but Britain's involvement had already been criticized by the likes of Rudyard Kipling, and Gandhi was the final straw. Britain had other problems anyway, like persecuting the Jews, so they just conceded to him. Naturally, Gandhi brought attention to the situatition and was probably the final blow, but I sincerely doubt the credit entirely belongs to him. So no, I cannot provide any specific events, and feel free to criticize me; I should have made it clear that it was just my thoughts. If you can convince me that Gandhi was more signifagent than I've acknowledged, I'll concede your point.

One last time: It's just my two cents' worth. (Or tuppence worth, in this case- forgive the pun.)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

First of all, you are wrong that the British didn't care much for keeping India. India, since the birth of the Empire, had always been the jewel in the crown. If there was one place Britain would've wanted to keep it would've indeed been India. It had so many prescious natural resources and the subcontinent is one of the most beautiful places in the world and for Britain to hold it gave them much presitge world wide.

Once Gandhi had highlighted the wrongdoings of the British, he then got aid, but the fact that he highlighted it is all down to him. It may not sound like much to simply point out a problem, but the sort of police brutality against Indians speaking out against the Empire was amazingly harsh. There was an incident in South Africa, then under Empire rule as well, when Gandhi first began his "passive resistance" protest method. He encouraged all Indians to burn their ID papers which they had to carry around with them (Only Indians had to do this). When he burned them, he was beaten up by police on the spot in front of everyone and he didn't strike back once. This was similar to the sort of treatment Indians got IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY from the British.

Once Gandhi had underlined the problem, various people got involved of course. Nehru and Jinnah to name but two. But Gandhi was always the main man. If violence ever flared up, Gandhi would be the one who fasted untill the people stopped...and they did stop, just for him.

He was arrested several times. Once, famously, he and many Indians were arrested for making salt. But he faced all this brutality without swinging a single blow. And rarely raising his voice.

He barely got involved in the politics of it all, but he took care of the fundamental issues and that was making sure Indians did things properly and respectfully.

And when all was said and done, Gandhi forgave the British. Why? Because, "Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong, only the weak cannot forgive".

So, clearly, his accomplishments were huge. There is more to Gandhi than just what he achieved. The man himself is a saint. I've mentioned the fasting and the forgiveness. Once, when he was fasting during violence between Hindu's and Muslims, a Hindi man came to Gandhi. He told Gandhi that he had smashed a small Muslim boys head against the wall and crushed it completely. He feared that he was going to hell. But Gandhi reassured the man that God would forgive him if he proved worthy. And to do so he had to take a Muslim child who had been orphaned due to the violence, and he had to raise him as his own...but as a Muslim. Years later, that man and his Muslim son presented themselves to tell the story of how the Great Mahatma made their lives better.


You cannot even criticise this guy. I'm all for objectivness, but find me something to criticise this legend for. Oh wait, once, he shouted at his wife violently. Bastard!

No, but seriously, you need to learn about the "Great Soul".

[Comrade Gorley]

Very well; I will. I understand my local library has a rather well recieved biography on him.

(whistling, goes to his local library's URL)

[lostsoul]

Socialsmo o Muerte - excellent information.


Comrade Gorley - i didn't mean to be harsh on you, i just dislike it when people talk without knowing. Too many people just talk talk talk but never research or read..i am not singling you out, i'm very guilty of it too. But sorry if i was harsh.

As for the book, i don't know what you want to gain from reading gandhi, if you want to learn about his achievments, then i suggest you read any biography(i have read a few and haven't found a bad or unintresting one yet).

If you want to understand his thinking and reasoning behind his actions, i suggest you read his autobiography called "my expirment with the truth". I am a slow reader but i finished this 500 page book in 1 week, i spend all day reading it and not doing anything else for a week. I actually liked it so much i went out and bought myself a copy too. I suggest that one, if your intrested in his thinking..if not then just read a normal bio.

Take care

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

One of the best books I reads on Gandhi was by Gianni Sofri, called "Gandhi and India". This gives information the Indian situation as well as just Gandhi.

Louis Fisher's book is also good, "The Life of Mahatma Gandhi"

The first book I read was the beginner's guide by Genevieve Blais. It's an excellent place to start.

Obviously, though, you must read his autobiography like lostsoul said.

Peter Ruhe, Ronaldo Terchek and Yogesh Chada have also written excellent books on the great man. The first three are the best ones though.

[Comrade Gorley]

Lostsoul:

You weren't harsh, I just had a momentarily lapse in intelligence. If anything, your comment revived it. Thanks. :)

(is poised to leap savagely next time Lostsoul makes an error;))

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Comrade Gorley on 12:48 am on May 13, 2003
Lostsoul:

You weren't harsh, I just had a momentarily lapse in intelligence. If anything, your comment revived it. Thanks. :)

(is poised to leap savagely next time Lostsoul makes an error;))

shit, then i guess that means i will have to stop lying and re-read everything i post :-)

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Ghandhi didn't like the idea of a political theory; he probably thunk that a spiritual theory that could/would run the actions of the people of a country. If a spiriral theory was able to do this, then there would be no use for Government (Anarchy stylez :P).

Like myself, Ghandhi didn't give a shit about political theory because he knew it wouldn't work. What we need in society is total spiritualism and if everyone believed it, then everything would be ok. No need for a rigid system made solely for discrediting the other side. No need for posing more questions than solutions. No more war, no more competitiion. Only care for fellow man. Utopia.

It's a nice dream, just like communism.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

That's completely wrong.

Gandhi (see the spelling?) did not "not give a shit" about politics. He ensured that people around him were very politically attuned e.g. Nehru.

He knew politics was crucial but, himself, chose not to become involved in actual politics. However, nearer to the end of his life, he admitted that he could not escape politics. Visits to Downing Street and Round Table conferences as well as diplomatic visits all over the world made Gandhi realise that he was indeed involved in politics actively, eventhough he did indeed care more about morality and his faith etc.

And, you say Gandhi said there was no need for war. But the Mahatma did indeed believe that war was at times necessary, "...as the very final resort".

[Rebelde para Siempre]

LOL, Nice work at proving me wrong. I want someone to prove me right though.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 2:10 pm on May 14, 2003
And, you say Gandhi said there was no need for war. But the Mahatma did indeed believe that war was at times necessary, "...as the very final resort".


i am sorry, i have never heard of this before. If possible can you give me a reference, or if not then please explain the context of this?

He got beaten many times, and as a result of his actions his country men got beaten(some killed), yet he told them to remain peaceful. When British generals are getting indian soliders to gun down protesters, i think the situation has gotten bad, and thats why i fail to see if he didn't encource voilence, then under what context did he say it could be nessary?

take care

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

In every book I mentioned before, other than the autobiogrphy, it has reference to a speech Gandhi made whilst visiting Britain.

When asked by a reporter what his thoughts on the World War were, Gandhi replied, "Although I am completely against violence in life, I do concede that some very extreme matters need resolving through war as the very final resort. That is not to say that I support this particular war."

Like I said, you will find that in any of the previously mentioned books.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 5:00 pm on May 15, 2003)

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 4:56 pm on May 15, 2003
In every book I mentioned before, other than the autobiogrphy, it has reference to a speech Gandhi made whilst visiting Britain.

When asked by a reporter what his thoughts on the World War were, Gandhi replied, "Although I am completely against violence in life, I do concede that some very extreme matters need resolving through war as the very final resort. That is not to say that I support this particular war."

Like I said, you will find that in any of the previously mentioned books.

(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 5:00 pm on May 15, 2003)


Thank you. i will try to look into that.

Its just weird, he said he didn't support the world war. What kind of war would he support?
(thats not a question for you..just a question i'm wondering my head) Perhapes he meant war as in defense of a country.

But thanks again!

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Obviously he meant REAL extremes. Like even more extreme than the threat of Nazism!

[black sheep.]

Gandhi was a Hindu. Hinduism is a very intolerant religion. Hinduism divides people into castes. It is the most anti-communist religion that exists. Gandhi may have supported the rights of untouchables. However, he refused to abandon Hinduism. Therefore, He was a hypocrite. How can he support untouchables and also believe in a 100% pro-intolerance religion?
Also, he supported the murder of Zulus. Gandhi only supported human rights for Indians. Gandhi's anti-impleralism was motivated by nationalism not socialism. Even Hitler believed in sticking up for "his" people. Does anyone disagree?

[Invader Zim]

People have been asking why Britain gave up India, the simple answer is that they could no-longer afford to keep it. After the 1st WW the empire was bankrupt.

Also when independance came in 1947 just after the 2nd WW Britain was again broke. So there was very little that they could have done to keep india.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

To call the most ancient of faiths "intolerant" is only to be intolerant yourself.

Maybe today, in this "modern" and "civilized" world that we live in, the separation of people into castes seems riddled with inequality. But in Hinduism, the caste system is not meant to mean those in higher castes go around saying "I'm better than you". Each member of each caste should have the utmost respect for anyone in any other caste.

It's not a system we look for in "modern" society I know, but that is exactly why that part of Hindusim has become less significant.

It's an interesting point. Very interesting. But you need to look at how the whole caste system works today before you say that.

You said that Gandhi was motivated by nationalism, not socialism. Well, most of us have agreed that Gandhi was not a Socialist. I don't feel it was nationalistic, just completely anti-colonialist. Rather than being nationalist, he just wanted India to be Indian and not British. There is a very thin line between those.

AK47...I don't think anyone was asking why Britain gave India up were they? The reasons were clear. Like you said. The hard bit was highlighting the problem that Britian was in the wrong and Gandhi did that. As with any revolution in history, circumstances allowed Gandhi and the Indian independance struggle to be successful.

[truthaddict11]

here is an interesting quote from ghandi

"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"

[lostsoul]

Quote: from black sheep on 6:56 am on May 29, 2003
Gandhi was a Hindu. Hinduism is a very intolerant religion. Hinduism divides people into castes. It is the most anti-communist religion that exists. Gandhi may have supported the rights of untouchables. However, he refused to abandon Hinduism. Therefore, He was a hypocrite. How can he support untouchables and also believe in a 100% pro-intolerance religion?
Also, he supported the murder of Zulus. Gandhi only supported human rights for Indians. Gandhi's anti-impleralism was motivated by nationalism not socialism. Even Hitler believed in sticking up for "his" people. Does anyone disagree?


Can you post some reliable sources on this? Did you research this or are you just going by what you heard?

not all believe in the caste system, only a few, and its not a product of the religion its a product of people. Just like not all or most muslims are terrorists, not all hindu's believed in treating people lower.

This is mentioned in the accient indian scriptures(and also in the gita, which is like the hindu bible), about 4 different groups of people. One is the religous guru's, the next is the royality(boss's), i forgot the name of this one but third one is basically like the average people(most of the world goes into the third cataorgy) and then comes the the last group who do the bad work(such as cleaning toliets,etc..).

The reason they divided people up in those books was not to cause the caste system, it was to prove their main point. Which is, that every group is useful, without one then all of society is fucked(although their actually system does't work today, but its theory is as relavant as it was over 5,000 years ago when it was written).

Everyone in society is important, from a begger on the street to the presdient, they may be in different catorigies but their all equal.

After hundreds of years, people started to interupt it the wrong way. If you want to know what your talking about i suggest you read the gita, it will give you a good general over view of hindiusm and then you will understand that under no conditions would the the caste sytem be tolerated by the creaters and true worshipers of hindiusm

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 1:22 pm on May 29, 2003
here is an interesting quote from ghandi

"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"


It's not interesting at all unless you tell us when GANDHI (se the spelling?) actually said that. If it ws in the early years of Hitler's reign, it's not interesting at all.

[truthaddict11]

it was in 1937

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And your source?

It's still not that interesting anyway. We all know how the Nazi's covered up their wrongdoings so the whole world had no idea..

This isn't the point of the debate anyway though.

[black sheep.]

Quote: from lostsoul on 2:19 pm on May 29, 2003

Quote: from black sheep on 6:56 am on May 29, 2003
Gandhi was a Hindu. Hinduism is a very intolerant religion. Hinduism divides people into castes. It is the most anti-communist religion that exists. Gandhi may have supported the rights of untouchables. However, he refused to abandon Hinduism. Therefore, He was a hypocrite. How can he support untouchables and also believe in a 100% pro-intolerance religion?
Also, he supported the murder of Zulus. Gandhi only supported human rights for Indians. Gandhi's anti-impleralism was motivated by nationalism not socialism. Even Hitler believed in sticking up for "his" people. Does anyone disagree?


Can you post some reliable sources on this? Did you research this or are you just going by what you heard?

not all believe in the caste system, only a few, and its not a product of the religion its a product of people. Just like not all or most muslims are terrorists, not all hindu's believed in treating people lower.

This is mentioned in the accient indian scriptures(and also in the gita, which is like the hindu bible), about 4 different groups of people. One is the religous guru's, the next is the royality(boss's), i forgot the name of this one but third one is basically like the average people(most of the world goes into the third cataorgy) and then comes the the last group who do the bad work(such as cleaning toliets,etc..).

The reason they divided people up in those books was not to cause the caste system, it was to prove their main point. Which is, that every group is useful, without one then all of society is fucked(although their actually system does't work today, but its theory is as relavant as it was over 5,000 years ago when it was written).

Everyone in society is important, from a begger on the street to the presdient, they may be in different catorigies but their all equal.

After hundreds of years, people started to interupt it the wrong way. If you want to know what your talking about i suggest you read the gita, it will give you a good general over view of hindiusm and then you will understand that under no conditions would the the caste sytem be tolerated by the creaters and true worshipers of hindiusm


I have no respect for India's Hindus. They are no different than members of the American Ku Klux Klan. Where I did I recieve my information about Hindus? I read an article on India's Untoucables in the magazine "National Geographic". It's the new issue. It just came out. It told about the injustice done to India's untouchables. Untouchables get acid thrown in thier face. They get beatings. They are lynched. They get no protection from India's police force at all. They are forbidden to drink out of public wells or mingle with other Indians.

Now I admit I am soft on Religion compared to Redstar2000. However, I am very tough on certain religions. Hinduism is one.of them. The destruction of Hinduism in India would be a very good thing. It promotes intolerance and hate.

I don't care about the Beatles' opinion of Hinduism. I don't care about all these hipster New Age people. Hindus are sorry people if they treat Untouchables inhumanely. All Hindus believe in treating untouchables unfairly. It's part of thier religion. Thier religion is based on intolerance.

Yes, I agree that everyone has a different place in society. I used to be a dishwasher at a restaurant. I know what it is like to lead a humble existance. I am not saying that everyone should be the "king". However, I am criticizing the inhumane treatment of "untouchables". The Hindu mistreatment of untouchables is enough to condemn Hinduism as barbaric.

My respect of India's Hindus is very low. I am not racist. I respect Indians who are not Hindus. However, anyone who believes in Hinduism accepts caste system with all its barbarism.

Why should I respect Hindus? Why should I respect Klansmen?
The Hindus have Hindu laws to justify thier barbarism. The Klansmen use perverted Bible passages to justify thier barbarism.

Does anyone disagree with me?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from CiaranB on 3:08 pm on May 10, 2003
The Myth of Mahatma Ghandi (http://www.howcomyoucom.com/articles/nov282000.htm)

This webpage has haunted me for some time now. It claims that he was racist and loyal to imperialism. It's hard to tell if this is a baseless attack on Ghandi, considering how well we all know the media can do their work.


Well Ghandi did support the Brittish during WOI, that could explain the Imperialist part.

I dont know much about his "racist" thougts.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Well I just read the article.

I never admired Ghandi's ideas too much, but his non-violent resistance gets my respect.

I always have seen Ghandi more as an pacifist rather than a socialist, or even a communist.

The article's info does match with the film and other info I've read about him.

But I dídn't know that he was racist against other Indian castes, I knew he was "anti-black".

I always had tought that he wanted to equalize the Indian people like the "superior" Brittish.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I have no respect for India's Hindus. They are no different than members of the American Ku Klux Klan. Where I did I recieve my information about Hindus? I read an article on India's Untoucables in the magazine "National Geographic". It's the new issue. It just came out. It told about the injustice done to India's untouchables. Untouchables get acid thrown in thier face. They get beatings. They are lynched. They get no protection from India's police force at all. They are forbidden to drink out of public wells or mingle with other Indians.

Now I admit I am soft on Religion compared to Redstar2000. However, I am very tough on certain religions. Hinduism is one.of them. The destruction of Hinduism in India would be a very good thing. It promotes intolerance and hate.

I don't care about the Beatles' opinion of Hinduism. I don't care about all these hipster New Age people. Hindus are sorry people if they treat Untouchables inhumanely. All Hindus believe in treating untouchables unfairly. It's part of thier religion. Thier religion is based on intolerance.

Yes, I agree that everyone has a different place in society. I used to be a dishwasher at a restaurant. I know what it is like to lead a humble existance. I am not saying that everyone should be the "king". However, I am criticizing the inhumane treatment of "untouchables". The Hindu mistreatment of untouchables is enough to condemn Hinduism as barbaric.

My respect of India's Hindus is very low. I am not racist. I respect Indians who are not Hindus. However, anyone who believes in Hinduism accepts caste system with all its barbarism.

Why should I respect Hindus? Why should I respect Klansmen?
The Hindus have Hindu laws to justify thier barbarism. The Klansmen use perverted Bible passages to justify thier barbarism.

Does anyone disagree with me?

I think I can safely say, I do.

To compare Hinduism to the KKK is quite obscene. I don'y know if you get off on trying to be controversial or whatever, but the suggestion is nothing short of ludicrous.

Have you read the Hindu scriptures? Doubtful. Therefore, you cannot comment on the caste system. Without reading the Bhagwandgita, your preposterous claims are completely invalid.

I also think your getting your claims mixed up. The acid throwing takes place in Bangladesh, it is not a part of Hinduism or indeed Indian culture. So take that claim to a thread about Bangladeshi culture, if such a thread exists.

Any "mistreatment of untouchables" is not encouraged in the teachings of Hinduism. It is therefore any Indian culture, or subculture, you should be questoning and not the teachings of Hinduism.

Again, you cannot distribute absurd comments such as, "All Hindus believe in treating untouchables unfairly. It's part of thier religion. Thier religion is based on intolerance. ", untill you have first actually studied what the religion teaches and also untill you have learnt how to spell the word 'their'.

It is not their religion, but rather your misguided view of their religion, that is based on intolerance.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

That is not the issue up for debate anyway.

[sglb]

gandhi wasnt a communist. i did a book report on him, and he was actually opposed to the communists. anyway, gandhi wasnt a communist, but still a great man.

[canikickit]

I don't really know if Gandhi was all that great. There was an interesting article in this month's National Geographic.

The full article isn't available on the website, but there is an extract.

Click away (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/index.html), but don't expect any great evidence for Gandhi not being great.

The article said something along the lines of, Gandhi doesn't get much respect from the Untouchables because he wished to maintain that system.

I was under the impression that the Hindu religion believes that people are reincarnated as Untouchables because of crimes in past lives.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from canikickit on 2:05 am on June 10, 2003
I don't really know if Gandhi was all that great. There was an interesting article in this month's National Geographic.

The full article isn't available on the website, but there is an extract.

Click away (http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/index.html), but don't expect any great evidence for Gandhi not being great.

The article said something along the lines of, Gandhi doesn't get much respect from the Untouchables because he wished to maintain that system.

I was under the impression that the Hindu religion believes that people are reincarnated as Untouchables because of crimes in past lives.

Gandhi did not want the caste system, that was one of the main things he fought against. I suggest you read his autobiography or any biography. To make people more accepting of untouchables, he used to invite them to live in his house, do their work, or when on trips live in their homes.

on the subject of untouchables being recincrated because of past sins is not true...well not extactly...In hinduism its not true, but people tend to believe it.

Hindism does not mention anything about treating anyone else unfairly. It says to treat humans, animals and even plants with respect and love. So anything related to untouchables is not from hinduism, its people twisting the words for their own purposes.


black sheep - your views are so warped that you refuse to even research and probally even speak to anyone about this. I will not comment on what your wrote since its so idiotic. I recently visted India, and i assure you that the untouchables problem is no longer as big as a problem as it once was(I read before it was bad), the untouchables are poor yes, but not many people care about the caste system anymore(only the highest ones seem to keep talking about it). To give the untouchables work, i would pay them to clean some of my clothes(that weren't even dirty), and i would bring their children and them candies and BBQ corn. They would accept it and we'd sit down and talk and talk. And while we would talk, i would notice many other people would give them food, clothes, money, etc..

These were all hindu's and muslims, and as a hindu i think i proved your cracked out belief in the evils of hinduism wrong.

The problem is not the caste system in india, its poverty. If a member of the highest Caste and the lowest are both poor, they are treated the same way. If they are both rich, they are treated the same way also.

The caste system is only talked about in india, i haven't heard or witnessed it being practiced.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Finally! An actual Hindu to back up what I've been trying to tell this idiot!!
Thank Krishna for that!!

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 4:14 pm on June 10, 2003
Thank Krishna for that!!

HAHAH

[canikickit]

I recently visted India, and i assure you that the untouchables problem is no longer as big as a problem as it once was(I read before it was bad), the untouchables are poor yes, but not many people care about the caste system anymore

Where exactly in India were you? The article I referred to noted that the problems for Untouchables was not particularily bad in the cities (where they are largely swollowed up in the rampant poverty, I'd imagine), but outside the cities was where the larger problem lay.

I was mistaken in what I said earlier about Gandhi, in the article. It actually tells us that Gandhi began a "fast until death" to protest the British government siding with Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar in a bid to reform the democratic processes in India.

I found this (http://www.proxsa.org/inspiration/ambedkar.html). It relates directly to Dr. Ambedkar, and includes some of his own writings on some of Gandhi's positions. This being a good example:

On Gandhi's support for the Hindu caste system, albeit devoid of untouchability

The social ideal of Gandhism is either caste or varna. Though it may be difficult to say which, there can be no doubt that the social ideal of Gandhism is not democracy. For whether one takes for comparison caste or varna both are fundamentaly opposed to democracy (p. 297). . . . Gandhism is a paradox. It stands for freedom from foreign domination, which means the destruction of the existing political structure of the country. At the same time, it seeks to maintain intact a social structure which permits the dominaiton of one class by another on a heriditary basis which means a perpetual domination of one class by another (p. 302).

[redstar2000]

Any "mistreatment of untouchables" is not encouraged in the teachings of Hinduism. It is therefore any Indian culture, or subculture, you should be questoning and not the teachings of Hinduism.

As always, Sr. Muerte, you fall back on your "cultural" defense whenever people behave badly from religious motives.

I don't deny that non-religious "cultural" motives can, on occasion, be teased out...but to maintain that religion is not part of culture but exists somewhere up in the air, free of earthly contamination, is ludicrous.

The "gods", whatever they're called, all have feet of clay...all are rooted in earthly class relationships and exist to consecrate them as "divine will".

Religious "justification" for atrocious behavior is a global phenomenon.

:cool:

PS: I hope folks had a look at the link provided by canikickit...it is very informative.

[canikickit]

#Moderation Mode

This should really be in History, shouldn't it?

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=26&topic=408)

[lostsoul]

i was in new dehli, and traveled to a few villages and towns nearby. I didn't spend most of my time in the cities, but i spent most of my time moving around, so i did get to look at various places, but not for too long. So perhapes maybe my obersations are not very creditable, because of my short stays.

redstar2000 - i agree with you somewhat, if a religion is made to teach compassion, and kindess. Their will always be some people who use it to justify their actions. Is the religion to blame? or is the individual?

Its like some communist countries, in order to protect the country they restrict people's freedoms. Many other siders use that to jusify their hatred for communism by blaming the system for giving people an oppurinity to do that. I personally blame the people. (like most people here tend to blame Stalin for the cruelities of the USSR in the past, and not communism. So i don't get why black sheep would blame the system and not the ones who are interpetting it?)

[redstar2000]

...if a religion is made to teach compassion, and kindess. There will always be some people who use it to justify their actions. Is the religion to blame? or is the individual?

Well, if the religion didn't exist, then the individual would have to scrounge up some other excuse for his atrocious behavior, wouldn't he?

And don't you find it strange that all of these religions that claim to preach "compassion and kindness" have hands that are soaked in innocent blood?

The clergy in each religion (who rarely fail to bless the slaughter with appropriate rituals) will always say that humans "are no damn good". That gets them "off the hook", they think.

No it doesn't. If people "are no damn good" before they get religion and they're still "no damn good" after they get religion, then what's the point?

I mean, of course, aside from the benefits the clergy receive as a result of their "sweet" little racket.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I need not comment on your intolerance towrd religion any more than I have done in the past, redstar, so I will not dwell on that.

canikickit, to look at Gandhi from a political perspective like you have done in some posts isn't really worth it. Gandhi never claimed to be a politician, and never was a politician. You cannot determine a person's political path which they follow if they, on numerous occasions, state that they neither have or want any connection with politics.

Gandhi's only politik was anti-colonialism.

All Gandhi fought for was the end of British rule and a future of independance for India. It is useless throwing poltical labels around for Gandhi.

redstar, I, unlike the ever democratic lostsoul, disagree with your statement. The culture of acid throwing in Bangaldesh, and sugested mistreatment of certain folk in India comes soleley from regional culture. Hinduism, as we have stated, does teach a caste system. But it also teaches to have the utmost respect and love for everyone. Therefore you can not, in any way at all, attach the treatment of the Untouchables to Hindi teachings.

[canikickit]

Gandhi's only politik was anti-colonialism.

In that case he should not have undermined Dr. Ambedkar, by political means. He demoralized Ambedkar's position because he felt Ambedkar was threatening the (oppressive) social structure of India (whether Hindu or not). Gandhi is a good example of a counterrevolutionary. Whether he consciously resisted real change or not isn't relevant.

Gandhi did do some good, definitely. I wouldn't deny that. I still admire him. I am quite impressed with Ambedkar, however.

[redstar2000]

Hinduism, as we have stated, does teach a caste system. But it also teaches to have the utmost respect and love for everyone.

So are they "bad teachers" or is everyone born deaf over there?

And do they have a "cultural tradition" of slaughtering Muslims (and vice versa, of course) that somehow overcomes all that "love and respect" crap?

Maybe "cultural tradition" is the work of the "Devil"?

Or perhaps, Sr. Muerte, your attempts to defend the indefensible are starting to wear you down.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

They could be deaf. Or they could just be ignorant and not listen to their faith's teachings. Let us not forget, they could just be non-religious people altogether. Have we any proof that the people you suggest treat Untouchables poorly (as well as any other wild accusations you want to throw at Hindu's) are actually practising Hindus? I think not. And if you do, I will be very impressed with your research ability first and foremost, but anyway, they would still me very much a minority.

I'm sorry, I have never heard of any slaughtering of Muslims.

I'm not actually trying to defend the culture. It needs not defence from someone so insignificant as me, also such an outsider as me. I'm neither Muslim, Hindu, Indian or anything else linked to that part of the world.

It's more a case of me trying to highlight your sick intolerance of the world around you.

canikickit, if "some good" is the best way to describe a man who opened the eyes of the world to a brutal colonial rule in a country miles away from home and then systematically drove the ruling forces out of the country by using no violent means what so ever whilst risking his own life on many occasions, then I agree with you whole heartedly. Personally, I would use different adjectives.

[redstar2000]

I'm sorry, I have never heard of any slaughtering of Muslims.

On this occasion, Sr. Muerte, I can help.

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search...ill+%2B+muslims (http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsifs&tab=news&q=Hindus+%2B+kill+%2B+muslims)

I won't hold it against you if you decline to go through all 16 pages (153 hits) for the search "Hindus+kill+muslims". And I'll let you handle the reverse search: "Muslims+kill+hindus".

I may be "intolerant"...in fact, I am intolerant of a good many things. But I suspect these folks could teach me a lesson or two!

As indeed all seriously religious people could do.

:cool:

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Firstly, redstar, I thank you for doing the search for me.

Second, I read through most of the artcles on the first page and the first few of the second. There is one fundamental flaw to your argument through use of articles such of these. That is that much of the news is related to Kashmir. Yes, there are many killings of Hindus by Muslims and vice versa because of Kashmir. But, as we know, the killings are of Indians and Pakistanis, not Hindus and Muslims. The Kashmir conflict between Indian and Pakistan, whose people just happened to be mainly Hindu and Muslim respectively.

In one or two of the other articles where there have been murders by one on the other, these are not for religious reasons either. Like I have said time and time again, even if one claims ot be killing because of religion, they cease to be religious because of what they are doing.

The main point was the one on Kashmir though. If these are the killings of Hindus and Muslims that you talk about, then it's not significant.