Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

i think the caste system pre-dates the mughul era.

there are hero's and there are baddies
it isnt helpful to raise the heros to the level of sainthood and it also isnt to deomonise the baddies to the level where they are not recognisable as human beings, if mugarbe doesnt look like the monster hitler has been made into, it takes longer to spot him as a tyrant.

sorry , not explaining myself very well.

i'm not an apologist fopr hitler/stalin or mugarbee, incase you were thinking that.

Sillibilimili - the British invented the Caste system and imposed it on the Indians. I never knew that. Well every day's a school day.

Quoting from Wiki, which is ALWAYS correct

"Salt as a household necessity was of special interest to women. Gandhi strongly favoured the emancipation of women, and he went so far as to say that "the women have come to look upon me as one of themselves." He opposed purdah, child marriage, untouchability, and the extreme oppression of Hindu widows, up to and including sati. He especially recruited women to participate in the salt tax campaigns and the boycott of foreign products.[70] Sarma concludes that Gandhi's success in enlisting women in his campaigns, including the salt tax campaign, anti-untouchability campaign and the peasant movement, gave many women a new self-confidence and dignity in the mainstream of Indian public life.[71]"

That does more for feminism then some fame seekers view of Gandhis musings on his sexuality.

As for Hitler, please say more people. I am not understanding your point.

i'm with beachcomber on this.

allthough i have idolised gandhi and it's a little painfull to find out he wasnt all sweetness and light, it's inportant to know the thruth and that he wasnt an angel.

i said upthread that we shouldnt judge people who acted 70 years ago on the values of today, but advocating the murder of rape victims is something i wouldnt judge from some historical figure from the stone-age maybe. but through a lens only 70 years in it's conduit, muder and rape havnt changed that much. no excuse for that i'm afraid.

but it also works both ways, just like it's misleading to make saints out of the heros it isnt helpful to demonise the baddies. hitler and stalin were both humans , by making them monsters we become blind to the next time such a figure decides to rise from some chaos because he/she doesnt look like a monster.

humanising hitler doesnt sound good, i know. but i'm not talking about his humanity, or lack of it, just the fact that he was made of the same flesh and blood we all are.

We've moved on then.

Gandhi. Child killer, bastard, mysoginist.

Hully, Mine too. Good debate.

Laughing really hard to "I'd rather be Gandhi saving a nation and sleeping next to naked women than someone obsessively looking up and quoting said odd practice while doing absolutely fuck all to advance anything."

Me too!

"In my view, it's interesting to explore the lives of people who made a difference, quite humbling to know that they weren't all perfect, think about the things that influenced them - what they were and were not able to do within the constraints of their time and place. But, arguing that they were all shits because they didn't live up to our current expectations of political views or personal behaviour? Well, I can't see alot of point in that personally."

Well said.

The spelling is GANDHI.

No, women are not further down the list of Gandhis actions and opinions. If you mean that in general, women are further down the list re. human rights in the world, I kind of see what you mean.

So,

1. Human right for every one in a country. (Okay, so they achieve Freedom from the British who looted India and treated the men, women and Children like second class citizens in their own country)
2. Freedom from racism (see above)
3. Freedom for Women and womens rights. (Now, lets concentrate on a smaller section of society once we have overall freedom/human rights)

The above hierarchy does make sense to me.

But its not how it really happens is it? Gandhi was against the practices of Sati (women killing themselves to avoid being raped by men who killed their husbands) at the same time as he was against the British oppressing one sixth of the world population based on their colour.

Why do great leaders have to live up to your standards of feminism to be great in their day?! He was way ahead of his time. If you look at India now and the views Gandhi expressed in his musings, you will see that even now, his writings are way ahead of his time.

To pick a tiny opinion he shared or thought he shared and then retracted and jump up and down about it and forget about the greater good he did for Billions is rather silly to say the least.

Folks, you also have to look at what people did through the lens of the time and place where they lived.

Canadian Suffragette Nelly McClung is best remembered for her feminist activism and campaigns against the evils of drink, but she also advocated sterilisation of people with mental illnesses and learning difficulties and was clear in her views that first nations people were inferior to those of European ancestry.

American Suffragette Victoria Woodhall (the first woman to run for President of the USA,) advocated for the legalisation of prostitution and later published a eugenics journal when she moved to the UK.

British advocate of birth control, Marie Stopes, made some pretty hair raising comments in her books about the perils of allowing low born, Irish, drunken and imbecile people have children.

So, few heroes or heroines of the past have completely clean rap sheets!

In my view, it's interesting to explore the lives of people who made a difference, quite humbling to know that they weren't all perfect, think about the things that influenced them - what they were and were not able to do within the constraints of their time and place. But, arguing that they were all shits because they didn't live up to our current expectations of political views or personal behaviour? Well, I can't see alot of point in that personally.

Well my saturday has been really really enriched.

I'd rather be Gandhi saving a nation and sleeping next to naked women than someone obsessively looking up and quoting said odd practice while doing absolutely fuck all to advance anything.

Ghandhi hasn't become a scapegoat . Far from it, judging by this thread. And of course you can say the same for the British, Spanish, Nazis, any oppressors. That's the point. And the fact that you could probably say the same for most leaders just shows how far down the list women really are. They may have been great leaders, in the patriarchal sense, but none of them proactively gave women rights without a fight.

Titillates, really. You think it is titillating that he advocated the murder of children.

He saved a lot of lives by his stance on cleanliness. He saved a lot of lives by his stance on violence of any kind. etc.

Please see the bigger picture and not just what titillates. (Sex)

Also, Gandhi being the power he was, had the humility to admit when he was wrong, to change his views to be open about his views. How many of us on Mumsnett admit this? We hide behind our Nicknames and anonymity for even basic views!!

Abigail, on that analysis virtually no one preWWII and not so many leaders outside the west today would pass muster. Yet we know that great leaders have and continue to do amazing things for women's rights, without necessarily meeting all modern day values. Do we write off the Pankhursts, for example, for being anti-abortion?

As sillybilli has also commented, the situation for women in India today also has to be viewed in the light of the massive influence of western colonialism (which most of us still benefit from, like it or not). Colonialism that perpetuated the caste system and subjugation of women because it was economically beneficial to the white English rulers. Gandhi's role in bringing about independence from the British was immense. I have never said he was perfect but to call him an 'arsehole' because he doeasn't measure up to all current western feminist values (particularly without valuing the enormous good ihe did do for women i India overall, and without acknowledging our own colonial history) is deeply offensive IMO.

We can say the same for the British Abigail. Its not that long ago that the British went about being raciest and sexist and did not allow human rights for entire nations!!

What about the Germans! All Nazis!

Oh, and the Spanish, who killed entire continents. Oh, the British as well? oh and the Portuguese too? What of the Opium wars? Really?

What about Leonardo who is now found to be Gay?
What about Churchill who was a total idiot and did not achieve anything but for the luck of his life, ended up being prime minister at a crucial time?
What about Malcomb X who resorted to violence?

The Indian issue is not due to Gandhi. It is due to men oppressing women. If everyone believed in Gandhi and did what he said, the caste system would not exist in India. Nor would poverty and filth. Nor would people eat meat or have alcohol there. As Gandhi was a teatotal vegetarian.

Gandhi has become a scapegoat.

His views changed as he gained more insight . Do you not see how privileged that statement sounds? He gained insight and realised women and children were human after all. Praise be.

And it isn't just one man's view. It was a hugely influential man's view and it would probably have been synonymous and representative of many powerful men's views at the time (and still to this day, judging by the fact there are 1.6million women and girls missing in India and China).

Lovely =lowly!!

But the fact is, Gandhis actions and attitude towards women developed and changed as he gained more insight. Please read link below to see why he actually achieved for women's rights in India. An India where all the natives were thought of as lovely darkies by the British. What of womens rights?! Of one mans opinion! Infact, why don't we discuss what the British did to the world and to human rights collectively rather than single out a poor old Skinny man who helped an entire country fight against oppression!!!

Well perhaps we should judge him through the eyes of those women who have been raped and have lost their "human value". And through the eyes of those girls killed because they were sexually assaulted. Do you think if you were one of those girls or women you might find his views abhorrent? And maybe even judge him for having them? Those views are disgusting whatever the context and era. And he should be judged on them. As should all the other historical figures for their misogynistic, racist, disablist views. Regarding any humans as not worthy, sub-human has always happened and always been excused. Those people subjugated and oppressed by those views know they are wrong though, no matter what context or what era.

I didn't say it was dangerous for western feminists to talk about his actions. I'm all for free speech! I said that I thought it was dangerous to judge him solely by western feminist thinking (values might have been a better word I admit).

Recognize his shortcomings, by all means, but judge him against the culture and thinking of his time, recognizing those areas where societal values have since changed. Otherwise the analysis is hopelessly unfair. The same could be said of Jesus, Florence Nightingale, Martin Luther King or any 'great' historical figure really.

Scroob, why do you think it is dangerous for western feminists to talk about Gandhi's actions and attitude towards women?

Do you mean, here, on this thread? Why is it dangerous for MNers to chat about this?

I agree with you 'arsehole' is not helpful - rather provocative and reductive. Not a reason to chuck the whole discussion out though IMO.

I'm going out, not ignoring any replies.