• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 249

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,828
Didn't know Gandhi was a racist piece of shit.

Fuck *anyone* who continues to revere this man.
This kind of binary purity test is why people get the excuse they need to not take legitimate criticisms and issues seriously, because some of you want to reduce everything to "no fuck you", without applying any semblance of nuance or context to it.

On topic- Gandhi may have recanted his views later, but there were African people who were legitimately hurt by his intolerance towards them for long enough that I have no issues with the statue being removed.
 

Keasar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,724
Umeå, Sweden
Yeah that is completely fair, Gandhi wasn't exactly fond of black people and they shouldn't have a statue of him around to remind them of that.
 

Deepwater

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,349
I don't really have an opinion on the statue removal, because I understand if people don't want to be associated with Gandhi, especially given that he did say racist things at some point in his life.

However, Gandhi's racist views were informed by his time and impressionable age. He did not remain racist for the rest of his life - his views markedly changed over time and he became a vocal supporter of decolonisation worldwide, including Africa. Branding him permanently as an anti-black racist for things he said in his youth is honestly, not fair.

See: Some of Gandhi's Early Views on Africans Were Racist. But That Was Before He Became Mahatma
Thanks for sharing.
 

Stardestroyer

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,819
It boggles my mind how eager people are to tear others down, as though a human being can be only one thing.

It boggles your mind because you don't care and don't have to care.

Read what Mammoth Jones below said it is a very simple concept of why tearing the statue is a good idea. Nobody is asking his statue to be tore down in India because arguably it probably deserves to be there. It doesn't belong in an African County. A country full of people he had to learn were human just as he is. Pathetic

This is my position.

Why should black people celebrate a non-black person that thinks they're inferior? If you want black people to embrace progressive figures more maybe some of ya'll should try shutting up and just listening once in a while...
(not directed at you, but to people like Kvetcha).

Seriously, are some people so fall up their own ass they cannot even grasp why Africans will not want a person who thought they were subhuman to be a statue in their country?

Save the fake concern for things that actually matter. Learning to treat your fellow human beings as equals is not a virtue one should learn so late in life, it is something you should be doing from the get go.

On the grand scheme of things Gandhi is probably better than a lot of people, but being better than a lot of people does not justify having a statue, especially by the blacks who Gandhi thought were subhuman.
 

iareharSon

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,974
I don't really have an opinion on the statue removal, because I understand if people don't want to be associated with Gandhi, especially given that he did say racist things at some point in his life.

However, Gandhi's racist views were informed by his time and impressionable age. He did not remain racist for the rest of his life - his views markedly changed over time and he became a vocal supporter of decolonisation worldwide, including Africa. Branding him permanently as an anti-black racist for things he said in his youth is honestly, not fair.

See: Some of Gandhi's Early Views on Africans Were Racist. But That Was Before He Became Mahatma

Being a product of their time is such a bullshit excuse. That excuse is always used, despite their being a lot of people from that same society and era that don't harbor prejudices.

And if Gandhi being a stone cold racist for decades of his adult life isn't enough to discount him, how about the fact that he was a misogynistic sexual deviant who forced young girls to sleep with him naked so he could test his celibacy? Or being Anti-Dalit Movement?
 

kvetcha

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,835
It boggles your mind because you don't care and don't have to care.

Read what Mammoth Jones below said it is a very simple concept of why tearing the statue is a good idea. Nobody is asking his statue to be tore down in India because arguably it probably deserves to be there. It doesn't belong in an African County. A country full of people he had to learn were human just as he is. Pathetic

(not directed at you, but to people like Kvetcha).

Seriously, are some people so fall up their own ass they cannot even grasp why Africans will not want a person who thought they were subhuman to be a statue in their country?

Save the fake concern for things that actually matter. Learning to treat your fellow human beings as equals is not a virtue one should learn so late in life, it is something you should be doing from the get go.

On the grand scheme of things Gandhi is probably better than a lot of people, but being better than a lot of people does not justify having a statue, especially by the blacks who Gandhi thought were subhuman.

To clarify, I don't disagree the statue should be taken down. I'm referring more specifically to the folks who say 'well, he said some racist things early in his life, so fuck him forever'.
 

Mammoth Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,377
New York
This thread really exposing some people honestly in their hearts believes so little of black people that they should have a statue up of a man that hated their guts and thought they were sub-humans. It says so much about ya'll.

I would like to think Ghandi would have supported this if he were repentant for his views of Africans early in his life, because they (along with his other problematic early views) complicate the narrative of him as a saintly hero to peace and equality, and are generally ignored or deliberately minimized by popular depictions of his life.

Word. And I mean, I don't require perfection from someone to acknowledge their achievements. But let's cut the bull: The man fought for his people. Nothing wrong with that. But don't expect me to hold him in high esteem when he actively hated on my people.

Good luck honoring anyone then if you can't handle shades of grey or people being idiots earlier in their lives.

When I look at the Catholic/Christian tradition, there's a ton of Saints who were pieces of trash who turned their lives around.

I don't know as much about Gandhi as I should, but his philosophy of non-violent social change had a huge influence on Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement in the United States.

It's certainly up to the individual communities as to what statues they want to leave up, but for me the influence Gandhi has had on the world has been a very positive one. But that's me looking at it with as someone who looks at ethics through a Utilitarian lens and weighing out all the positives and negatives.

Knew it was a matter of time till someone MLK'd this thread. You can take an idea from someone and use it for yourself while simultaneously recognizing that the person that proliferated the idea hated your guts. Thus it makes little sense to have a statue of the motherfucker up around your people of a man with a good idea that hated your people. He belongs in history textbooks in Africa. Not as a statue.

To clarify, I don't disagree the statue should be taken down. I'm referring more specifically to the folks who say 'well, he said some racist things early in his life, so fuck him forever'.

I mean, I'm not indian. I'm black. So I can take a good idea he had and say "Hey let's use that since it's a good idea" and still not give a shit about the person that I took the idea from since he thinks I'm a subhuman savage. Like, what part of that don't you understand from the perspective of black folks? And even then I mean I hold no ill will for those that wanna celebrate the man. Just don't act like black folks should given dudes views of us.
 

arglebargle

Member
Oct 26, 2017
981
ww2 is an interesting case. my very limited understanding is that a lot of non-whites in (especially south) africa were sort of in favor of germany because the british were their oppressors. so the enemy of my enemy kind of thing.

trevor noah has an interesting section about this in his book. hitler is the worst thing that happened to a lot of europe and is rightly vilified for his actions. but he never did much to africans and there were plenty of people who did terrible things to africans. someone like cecil rhodes or king leopold are the big villains in their story. from the perspective of a south african black, hitler was one of many monsters, though one who perpetrated his crimes far away, and he was weakening their oppressors. so not the worst in the same way he is the worst to us.
 

kswiston

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,693
ww2 is an interesting case. my very limited understanding is that a lot of non-whites in (especially south) africa were sort of in favor of germany because the british were their oppressors. so the enemy of my enemy kind of thing.

A lot of South East and East Asia was pro-Japanese at first in WW2 for similar reasons. But the Japanese were terrible to the locals of occupied territories. When it was clear that Japan wanted to be the replacement colonizers (and not liberators) that goodwill didn't last.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Serious answer: This is fine. When thinking of Gandhi's anti-colonialist work, the effects of it in Ghana rarely come to mind. I certainly can't blame them for having a dim view of the guy even if his opinions on black liberation changed with time.

Joke answer: Wow, what a way to announce Yandhi's release
 

Limit

Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
362
This thread really exposing some people honestly in their hearts believes so little of black people that they should have a statue up of a man that hated their guts and thought they were sub-humans. It says so much about ya'll.

No. This thread is exposing your narrow mindedness of failing to grasp that Gandhi's views on blacks were not cumulative of his early years. It says quite a bit about you as a person.

We can all play this game of reducing the totality of a person down to a single negative trait or two.

On the actual topic, if the University students feel strongly about removing the statue, then fine. Even the most noble of individuals are just people. Filled with faults. Idolatry is an inherent exercise in futility.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
ww2 is an interesting case. my very limited understanding is that a lot of non-whites in (especially south) africa were sort of in favor of germany because the british were their oppressors. so the enemy of my enemy kind of thing.

Yeah, and Monbiot's description here of the crimes Britain committed in Africa probably sound very familiar in the context of WW2.

Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors – rebels and loyalists – and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.

Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.

The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled. Unless you have a strong stomach I advise you to skip the next paragraph.

Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities
 

Mammoth Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,377
New York
No. This thread is exposing your narrow mindedness of failing to grasp that Gandhi's views on blacks were not cumulative of his early years. It says quite a bit about you as a person.

We can all play this game of reducing the totality of a person down to a single negative trait or two.

"Acknowledging a racist is narrow-minded" -You

That's the thing. It's not a game. Sad you seem to think is it. Maybe you can brush off and justify someone believing black people are inferior. Personally I can't and so I won't.

I'd rather you just say "I don't care how he viewed black people". Or "I don't think how he viewed black people is relevant." At least then you'd be honest.
 

Limit

Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
362
"Acknowledging a racist is narrow-minded" -You

That's the thing. It's not a game. Sad you seem to think is it. Maybe you can brush off and justify someone believing black people are inferior. Personally I can't and so I won't.

I'd rather you just say "I don't care how he viewed black people". Or "I don't think how he viewed black people is relevant." At least then you'd be honest.

Who is playing the game here? Did you read my post? I"m not trying to be condescending but it appears you didn't read what I said, at all.

Why do you continue to claim that having believed in racist things once in someone's life forever brands that person as a racist? That people cannot change? Go look at what he had to say about oppression of Africans in his later years.

You are the ones who needs to stop playing these silly forum games of labeling everyone who disagrees with your simpleton views as racist.
 

arglebargle

Member
Oct 26, 2017
981
A lot of South East and East Asia was pro-Japanese at first in WW2 for similar reasons. But the Japanese were terrible to the locals of occupied territories. When it was clear that Japan wanted to be the replacement colonizers (and not liberators) that goodwill didn't last.

interesting history. i didn't know that, but it makes sense.
 

Alaxend0l

Member
Dec 6, 2017
167
I had no idea Gandhi was racist. I even wrote a paper for college painting him in a positive light just a few weeks ago. God damnit...
 

deimosmasque

Ugly, Queer, Gender-Fluid, Drive-In Mutant, yes?
Moderator
Apr 22, 2018
14,324
Tampa, Fl
Even when Ghandi was supposedly a saint and fighting for civil rights he still had a lot of problematic views and actions..

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html
Gandhi found it easy to embrace poverty. It was chastity that eluded him. So he worked out a series of complex rules which meant he could say he was chaste while still engaging in the most explicit sexual conversation, letters and behaviour.
He set up ashrams in which he began his first "experiments" with sex; boys and girls were to bathe and sleep together, chastely, but were punished for any sexual talk. Men and women were segregated, and Gandhi's advice was that husbands should not be alone with their wives, and, when they felt passion, should take a cold bath.

The rules did not, however, apply to him. Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi's secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. "While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut," he said, "I do not know ... whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap." The provision of such personal services to Gandhi was a much sought-after sign of his favour and aroused jealousy among the ashram inmates.

As he grew older (and following Kasturba's death) he was to have more women around him and would oblige women to sleep with him whom – according to his segregated ashram rules – were forbidden to sleep with their own husbands. Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his "experiments" which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in strip-tease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi's letters remain such as: "Vina's sleeping with me might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me." One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him.
 

Mammoth Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,377
New York
Who is playing the game here? Did you read my post? I"m not trying to be condescending but it appears you didn't read what I said, at all.

Why do you continue to claim that having believed in racist things once in someone's life forever brands that person as a racist? That people cannot change? Go look at what he had to say about oppression of Africans in his later years.

You are the ones who needs to stop playing these silly forum games of labeling everyone who disagrees with your simpleton views as racist.

Fuck what he said when he was worried about his legacy in his later years. Ain't got shit to do with forum games. I been knew about Ghandi and don't really hold him in high esteem. I'll be damned some random person that probably never gave a second thought to black people or our issues gonna wag they finger at me and act like I'm supposed to accept that. Fuck outta here forever with that noise.

Here you go:
One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for whites and blacks at the Durban post office. Gandhi objected that Indians were "classed with the natives of South Africa," who he called the kaffirs, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians.

"We felt the indignity too much and … petitioned the authorities to do away with the invidious distinction, and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans."

In a petition letter in 1895, Gandhi also expressed concern that a lower legal standing for Indians would result in degenerating "so much so that from their civilised habits, they would be degraded to the habits of the aboriginal Natives, and a generation hence, between the progeny of the Indians and the Natives, there will be very little difference in habits, and customs and thought."

In an open letter to the Natal Parliament in 1893, Gandhi wrote:
"I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan. … 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."

At a speech in Mumbai in 1896, Gandhi said that the Europeans in Natal wished "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."

Protesting the decision of Johannesburg municipal authorities to allow Africans to live alongside Indians, Gandhi wrote in 1904 that the 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."

In response to the White League's agitation against Indian immigration and the proposed importation of Chinese labour, Gandhi wrote in 1903: "We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race."

Gandhi wrote in 1908 about his prison experience: "We were 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."

In 1939, Gandhi justified his counsel to the Indian community in South Africa against forming a non-European front: "I have no doubt about the soundness of my advice. However much one may sympathise with the Bantus, Indians cannot make common cause with them."

Now, you can come to whatever conclusions you wish about the man. As for me? Fuck anyone forever that tells me that I'm supposed to forgive and forget that kinda shit.
 

RellikSK

Member
Nov 1, 2017
2,470
I had no idea Gandhi was racist. I even wrote a paper for college painting him in a positive light just a few weeks ago. God damnit...

MLK Jr also showed aspects of being homophobic as well, saying that being gay is a problem and that a boy was on the right path when he acknowledged it and seeked a therapist, though I will say that his wife was more supportive of LGBT and he could have changed his mind since one of his closest allies was openly gay.
We all should acknowledge that people in the past can be great people who made the world a better place but will have problematic views that would not survive by todays standards because of the time they were born into and world they grew up in.
 

kswiston

Member
Oct 24, 2017
3,693
interesting history. i didn't know that, but it makes sense.


WW2 was pretty complex due to pre-existing relationships between nations. Take France for instance. Widespread support for the resistance movement in France didn't happen until pretty late in the war. Most people were resigned to just making due as a vassal state of the Germans. Many still had the opinion that England was worse than Germany, even after German occupation had started.
 

Limit

Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
362
Fuck what he said when he was worried about his legacy in his later years. Ain't got shit to do with forum games. I been knew about Ghandi and don't really hold him in high esteem. I'll be damned some random person that probably never gave a second thought to black people or our issues gonna wag they finger at me and act like I'm supposed to accept that. Fuck outta here forever with that noise.

Here you go:
















Now, you can come to whatever conclusions you wish about the man. As for me? Fuck anyone forever that tells me that I'm supposed to forgive and forget that kinda shit.

So when he said all the quoted stuff, he had nothing but hatred in his heart. And when he said stuff about Africans that directly contradicts his earlier racist stance in life, he still had hatred in his heart. Now he's just a poser who is trying to salvage this legacy. And you know inner workings of his psyche because reasons.

Learning about Gandi's later views on suffering of africans is a very goggle-able thing, as I'm sure you know. But fine. Don't change your mind. Continue spending your time as a forum demagogue.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
The rules did not, however, apply to him. Sushila Nayar, the attractive sister of Gandhi's secretary, also his personal physician, attended Gandhi from girlhood. She used to sleep and bathe with Gandhi. When challenged, he explained how he ensured decency was not offended. "While she is bathing I keep my eyes tightly shut," he said, "I do not know ... whether she bathes naked or with her underwear on. I can tell from the sound that she uses soap."

Well, gonna spend my afternoon figuring out which era account is his
 

Mammoth Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,377
New York
So when he said all the quoted stuff, he had nothing but hatred in his heart.

So it's ok he said that shit cause his...heart? C'mon man. Just stop.


And when he said stuff about Africans that directly contradicts his earlier racist stance in life, he still had hatred in his heart. Now he's just a poser who is trying to salvage this legacy. And you know inner workings of his psyche because reasons.

Same way you know his heart. C'mon man. Just stop.

Learning about Gandi's later views on suffering of africans is a very goggle-able thing, as I'm sure you know. But fine. Don't change your mind. Continue spending your time as a forum demagogue.

Whine and bitch about me in the context of this forum all you want. It changes nothing. You know what else it doesn't change? All that racist shit Ghandi said. I'm glad his statue was torn down and I hope they melted it. You mistake my stance for forum demagoguery because you have never bothered to fathom how the people he has disparaged and distanced himself from even feel about it. Let's be real, before this thread it never occurred to you.

This would be 100% easier if you'd just say "I am completely indifferent regarding Ghandi's views on and actions against black people."
 
Last edited:

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,686
Yeah I know this is a controversial opinion, but looking back on Gandhi's life and record... it's not really worthy of reverence. He obviously played a huge part in his people gaining their independence, but I feel like that would have happened with or without his actions and maybe would have went more peacefully.

Or I might be uneducated on the subject and, if that's the case, I apologize.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,858
It's kinda insane that a Gandhi statue would be installed at an academic institution in Ghana, and in 2016. For those curious as to why it was there in the first place:

NPR:
A petition from the faculty members also noted that the University of Ghana's campus did not have statues of African heroes and heroines.
As NPR previously reported, the statue was installed on campus in 2016 and controversy over it was almost immediate:
"The statue was unveiled in June [2016] by Indian President Shri Pranab Mukherjee during a state visit to Ghana, and professors began rallying against it in September [2016].

"In a statement, Ghana's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it was following the controversy with 'deep concern,' and added: 'While acknowledging that human as he was, Mahatma Gandhi may have had his flaws, we must remember that people evolve. He inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world."​

The ministry stressed that the 'unfortunate verbal attack' against Gandhi could potentially 'create disaffection not only at the level of Government relations, but also between people not only in our country but all over the world.' "​
In its initial response to the protests, the ministry said it wanted to "relocate" the statue, to tamp down the outrage while also protecting the artwork itself.
But it remained in place until this week.
The statue "was removed in the middle of the night on Tuesday, leaving just an empty plinth," The Guardian reports. It's unclear exactly where it is now.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,789
Gandhi was also a misogynist. I feel figures like him basically demonstrate the sort of reality that a lot of modern social justice tries to detach itself from. People have facets. They aren't absolutely good or bad, they are good or bad in particular ways. We should teach and revere the good parts of people but be aware that like anyone they were human and flawed, sometimes in very serious ways especially given how societies progress. Time makes fool of us all. No matter how we think and behave we will be the bigots of tomorrow, guaranteed.
 

Atreides

Member
Oct 25, 2017
94
Spain
Didn't know Gandhi was a racist piece of shit.

Fuck *anyone* who continues to revere this man.

I have no problem with this statue being removed, or people disliking Gandhi, but please don't insult people who likes Gandhi. What would you think if I said something like "Barak Obama commited countless war crimes and killed lots of people with his military orders, fuck anybody that likes him".
 

PHOENIXZERO

Member
Oct 29, 2017
12,197
I would've figured more around here would've known this, shit's not a secret or hard to find, he also slept with young girls to "test" his celibacy and had a thing for enemas.

Mother Theresa is a piece of shit as well.
 

PHOENIXZERO

Member
Oct 29, 2017
12,197
DP because for whatever reason already posted posts get saved in the post reply thing and I get confused.
 

JealousKenny

Banned
Jul 17, 2018
1,231
I find it quite ironic that we have people here defending Ghandi and his racist views by saying that was in his past, don't focus on that, when we live in a society that is 100% about digging up views and posts from your past and demanding accountability.

But us black folk already know racism is OK just as long as it's racism that white folks have an interest in defending.
 

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,283
All of you defending Gandhi by saying he changed... I'm curious to see your views on Gunn and Hart's past tweets.

I find it quite ironic that we have people here defending Ghandi and his racist views by saying that was in his past, don't focus on that, when we live in a society that is 100% about digging up views and posts from your past and demanding accountability.

But us black folk already know racism is OK just as long as it's racism that white folks have an interest in defending.
Thank You!
 

Enzom21

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,989
I find it quite ironic that we have people here defending Ghandi and his racist views by saying that was in his past, don't focus on that, when we live in a society that is 100% about digging up views and posts from your past and demanding accountability.

But us black folk already know racism is OK just as long as it's racism that white folks have an interest in defending.
There will always be people who jump at the chance to defend anti-black racism/racists.
 

Mammoth Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,377
New York
I find it quite ironic that we have people here defending Ghandi and his racist views by saying that was in his past, don't focus on that, when we live in a society that is 100% about digging up views and posts from your past and demanding accountability.

Seems to be only when it's convenient for some people. But not for others. Funny how that's still a thing these days.

But us black folk already know racism is OK just as long as it's racism that white folks have an interest in defending.

"I mean, yea but it's black people so they should just shut up and listen to what we tell them!"

There will always be people who jump at the chance to defend anti-black racism/racists.

But if you point this out you're narrow-minded. Can't have that...
 

Deleted member 32374

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 10, 2017
8,460
Jeez people, its ok for historical figures who are revered by some to not be perfect. No defense force needed. Its a stupid statue, it didn't change anything that he did or didn't do. No one is threatening his legacy. People are pissed because he was racist against their ancestors and want to lose the statue? Go ahead. No one is removing Gandhi from the history books.
 

VectorPrime

Banned
Apr 4, 2018
11,781
Ghana can choose to do with whatever they want with their statues that's fine. But based on some of the replies in this thread I'd expect some of you would support the Lincoln Memorial being dismantled because for a while Abe envisioned a US without slavery not with Blacks being given equality but instead being sent packing back to Africa.
 

BlackGoku03

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,283
Ghana can choose to do with whatever they want with their statues that's fine. But based on some of the replies in this thread I'd expect some of you would support the Lincoln Memorial being dismantled because for a while Abe envisioned a US without slavery not with Blacks being given equality but instead being sent packing back to Africa.
Yeah but Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation... Gandhi didn't.
 

JealousKenny

Banned
Jul 17, 2018
1,231
Ghana can choose to do with whatever they want with their statues that's fine. But based on some of the replies in this thread I'd expect some of you would support the Lincoln Memorial being dismantled because for a while Abe envisioned a US without slavery not with Blacks being given equality but instead being sent packing back to Africa.


You really don't want to go down the rabbit hole on the difference of opinion black people have on certain historical figures as compared to whites. But that's expected when you have a country made up of people with so many historical backgrounds.
 

The Emperor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,790
Good. He was absolutely racist towards black people. May have 'evolved' his views at some point but some of the things he said were extremely dehumanising. It's hard to take a lot of that back.

I think taking down his statue is the right decision.

He deserves respect for what he did for India and how much he inspired the cause there. His non violence stuff is great too. But he deserves to be criticized for this.

People can be amazing in some ways and terrible in others. Humans 101.