Ghandi, Aung San Su Kiy and other arseholes

[solidgoldbrass]

Isn't it just the case that it's nearly impossible to achieve huge memorable changes in the world without being a bit of an arsehole? You've got to have a massive ego to think you can take on such a challenge, and so it's really not that surprising that pretty much everyone who achieved massive changes for the good turns out to have been a bit of a sod round the house and have various other unattractive traits.

Thanks for this thread, I'm enjoying reading it.

Cresentmoon

"its not high ideals, the enlightenment, liberal democracy, christianity et al that won or even still win it for the west, it is the superiority in applying organised violence"

Yes I agree. I also agree with another poster that violence is not limited to the West alone. This is similar to what China is currently doing in Tibet. (What the East India Company did to the Indians/Pakistanis and Bangladesis.) But then, if you look at Chinese history, China was circumnavigating the globe in 1500s. They did not attack anyone then even when they knew they were a mightier power than the Portuguese were at that time.

To another poster, that western style democracy is the only way is again a flawed statement. India through Hinduism, through its acceptance of Budhism, through acceptance of Jainism, Sikhism in its lands although was ruled politically by principalities, everyone co-existed. All gods were even. according to the Gita, all paths lead to God. Hinduism having many many deities, already had ingrained the concept of 'democracy' in the fabric of Indians. Therefore I will argue that the west did not 'discover' democracy.

Hinduism is a very secular religion and its fundamental nature is democratic. Open discussions are a norm. Critiques are welcomed. There is no leader at the top like the Pope. There are no restrictions and regulations. There are female priests, and heads of sects.

"what i always found interesting about the indian struggle for independence was its non violence. was that really what won it silibilimili? i read frantz fanon's the wretched of the earth, which he wrote after he took part in the anti colonial struggle of algeria. he wasnt pro violence but he was anti non violence, he believed the coloniser was there only by sheer military strength and so the only way to resist him was by violence."

Wow, this is a profound discussion and I am so loving it.

Hmm. I think the Indians tired out the British with its civil dis-obedience movement. The British were getting frustrated with the Indians. Therefore massacres like the Jallian Wala Baug happened (where a British general opened fire on innocent men women and children. Killing hundreds) These violent outbursts from the British put a moral pressure on them and through the international community. On another side the British were also loosing a battle against Hitler. They were financially and morally bankrupt.

India supplied a lot of men during WWI. By WWII not many Indians were fighting for the British against Hitler (civil disobedience). The deal was done that if India supplies its men to fight for the British, the British will quit India.

This is a very short history of India became independent of the British.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army#First_World_War

And this from the BBC

"More Indians volunteered to fight for Britain in World War I than all the Scots, Welsh and Irish combined and more than the sum total from all the rest of Britain's colonies and dominions. If that comes as a surprise to you, you're not alone. The contribution of the 1.27 million Indian volunteers has been almost completely neglected by British and Indian historians and they have remained no more than ghosts on the landscape of history."

Above number is only for WWI.

For WWII,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

2.5 million men were fighting for the Allies from what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

No, if the west were so civilised, they would have been like the Parsis of Iran who came to India

The Parsis are more like the Quakers, a better comparison with a full blooded Western colonial movement would be the Moghul conquest of India.

SiliBiliMili, I don't know why you keep going on about India. The issue is how women are treated in India, and whether they're respected equally with men. I believe the answer is "no". What do you say about that (goddesses aside)?

Eve teasing? It seems to be really prevalent, and there's no sign of an end to it. On thing I know is that they have special railway carriages for women on the Mumbai commuter trains, to protect women on their way to work.

whatmeworry I did not compare it to the mogul conquest as the moguls came into India to 'rule' but in general became a part of India. They did not loot and send all the money back to wherever they came from. They largely also made huge attempts to accept the diversity (look up Akbar).
tt I was answering cresentmoons question. Also, you cannot talk about Gandhi by ignoring India and the British. Re. Rights of females, I am trying to put this into perspective for you. That where 60years ago, the natives did not have human rights, what of the rights of women?!

Found this in a Guardian article about the EIC here

" The wills of East India Company officials, now in the India Office library, clearly show that in the 1780s, more than one-third of the British men in India were leaving all their possessions to one or more Indian wives, or to Anglo-Indian children - a degree of cross-cultural mixing which has never made it into the history books. It suggests that, 200 years before Zadie Smith made it on to the telly and multiculturalism became a buzzword politically correct enough to wake Norman Tebbit and the Tory undead from their coffins at party conferences, the India of the East India Company was an infinitely more culturally, racially and religiously mixed place than modern Britain can even dream of being.

The wills of the period also suggest perhaps surprising ties of intense affection and loyalty on both sides, with British men asking their close friends to be executors and to care for their Indian partners, referring to them as "well beloved" or "worthy friend", and even - as Kirkpatrick's will has it - "the excellent and respectable Mother of my two children for whom I feel unbounded love and affection and esteem"."

Great article from the guardian. Thank you for the link mrgin.

I would also like to add that India had the first democratically elected female prime minister in the developing world. Indian parliament sets aside at least one third of its seats for women.
As for the eve teasing. It is largely due to illiteracy. If you go to the south of India, where there is almost 98% literacy, this happens seldom. It's more prevalent in larger cities where there is a whole hotchpotch of cultures and levels. Its like us walking past building sites here expecting not to be whistled at.
Cultures change with education and financial security too.

Cultures change with education and financial security too.

The sort of thing you get with a westernized society.

"India had the first democratically elected female prime minister in the developing world."

Sirimavo Bandarnaike must have lived so long ago that she's forgotten now.

(Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, 1960–65, 1970–77 and 1994–2000.)

That's weird. 1960-65, 1970-77 and 1994-2000.

whatmeworry While it may eventually have been done by others (though the Chinese had gunpowder for a while before we used it for guns, and steel was all over east Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, and parts of Asia before we used it), that doesn't really excuse what was done or what continues to be done in the name of "Western ideals" to others.

Any decent historian will tell you that the modern telling of history has a large whitewash effect applied to it. We only been on top for a short while comparatively to other groups though that's hard to tell by how media and 'our' history books tell it. The African empires and their many accomplishments are but ignored and usurped and the people are treated as if they were all sitting around waiting to be enslaved, Greece and Rome have been made white (though Italians and Greeks have only been considered white by Western standards for a short time) regardless that their own pottery and writings show that it was by language and cultural traditions they were divided (and the bias that was there was against the pale, not for it, due to fighting with northern European nations) and that their armies and people were made up of what we call a very racially diverse mix. Europe is treated in modern history and the media as a white only space barring slaves until the 19th century, disregarding whole swathes of scholars and traders and simply people living here (again, Africans treated as if they didn't have boats or desire to travel). After the 19th century, the same history and media treats the indigenous nations of the Americas as fantasy for play (ignoring the nations that survive the genocides now have devolved powers and in some cases sovereignty, even if the UK refuses to acknowledge them when they use them). America and other places were won not only by mass production of steel and guns and germs, but by the ideals of moral superiority and bringing 'proper' civilisation to others -- and that moral superiority could be told by what was on the outside that no one could earn (unlike language or cultural assimilation which can be gained as had been the normal practice of conquering people prior to and what is the final result of conquering in both ways). This created ladder of physical morality is still in place, much like the created ideal that the physical status of male and female is still in place and creating a cultural rhetoric that is slowly being overcome but still effects the reality of individuals, institutions, and society. That's why the rhetoric is that we brought law and order - yes there were wars and conflicts among the nations - but no more really than was in Europe at the same time.

Some have argued that this is why many (particularly Americans where the manifest destiny and racial morality mindset hold strongest) have such a problem with evolution. To acknowledge that as real would be to acknowledge that we all came from Africa...and Africans. Admitting ones visible identity - which gives such privilege - is really an evolutionary mutation (unearned) rather than the top of a moral pyramid (earned) is challenging to the physical morality rhetoric.

cresentmoon I agree with you. I have seen more discrimination for my colour than for being a women. Although this is very hard to distinguish in this day and age. The racism is not overtly 'raciest' but you feel it. The discrimination. The
Judgements. It's more annoying when people assume things without even visiting the country your grandparents are from. The judgements based on a few articles from the guardian or the BBC they have read. Clearly not tourism guides!!
It's like assuming everyone from Brasil lives in shanty towns. Or all Italian women are good cooks, or all philipinos are poor. Etc etc. it is specially annoying to hear this from a white western women. No mater how good the intention, it sounds judgemental and borderline raciest.

Excellent post 'goodpharisee*

tt yes, you are right, it was the Sri lankan prime minister first. By 5 years. Apologies.

Narcissists often get to the top of the pile.

"Cultures change with education and financial security too."

"The sort of thing you get with a westernized society."

TT There is no basis for your comment. Its just an assumption. There are lots of non-western societies that are educated and financially secure. Look at China and Japan. The western model is hardly ideal. Women are just objects in western society. Atleast in others they have a higher ideal (goddesses) (Japan, China, India etc) or Matriachal hierarchy (Africa, South America etc).

The wests finanical security is very new. Specially if you consider how long dynasties such as the Chinese, Egyptian, Kingdom of Benin, etc survived. It is only in the last century due to the colonisation and robbing other countries of their wealth the west has got where it has. It looks like it is not going to stay there very long either.

whatmeworry While it may eventually have been done by others (though the Chinese had gunpowder for a while before we used it for guns, and steel was all over east Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, and parts of Asia before we used it), that doesn't really excuse what was done or what continues to be done in the name of "Western ideals" to others

If the West hadn't put the combination together, someone else would have, and then the world would have been lamenting Chinese or Indian or whatever hegemonies instead.

As to the rest of your post, firstly Greece and Rome have always been considered the foundation stones of Western culture so I don't know how you come to the conclusion you do that they were never considered as Western. Secondly, less advanced cultures have been routinely squished by more advanced ones since Homo Sapiens squeezed out the Neanderthals and lived to paint pictures in caves telling their deeds. Thirdly, its got nothing to do with moral superiority and everything to do with the access to "because we can" technologies - plenty of morally superior cultures have been given their harsh comeuppance, Aztec and 19th Century China's being some of the rudest.

Its what we do. Its all very sad to those it happens to, but its all part of our humanity to our fellow human.

cresentmoon
Its a good theory but I doubt the 'west' collectively had this plan. I say this because how many people know that Gautam Buddha was not Chinese/Japanese with oriental features but actually an Indian prince?!

We like to fashion our gods in our image (except the Indian and the ancient Egyptians of course) (Dont know what they were on!! )

I believe that the missionaries truly believed in their message. They still do. Some of the fault also has to lie with the 'brown' skinned people for thinking they were inferior and giving up their God. But that is not how it happened again did it? If you go to Brasil for example, African/Ancient American customs of the natives are still followed together with Christianity.

Gandhi used the principles of Christianity to get rid of the British. He was never week. The British understood that.

Mandela is always compared to Gandhi in terms of how he helped achieve liberation for the south Africans but unlike Gandhi, Mandela did not turn the other cheek. He tried to put together an Army of African nations (see his biography).

The other point is, civil disobedience does not cost as many lives and money as out right war. Its a smarter way to win.

i personally am interested in feminist issues but i do not see the world divided into male and female. it is the haves and have nots - often based not on gender but on colour or on nationality

The great lottery if life.

You know there is that gap between ages of about 13 - 33 ( I think ) when Jesus' life wasn't written about.... It's a mystery.

I know it's vague, And is totally speculative, but I have heard suggestions he went to India and absorbed a lot of ideas there......

I can remember not being able to reconcile images of a White Jesus with what we were taught. There seemed to be a lot of gold too which was a bit at odds with the message.

And Europe is / was weatlthy in a large part from stealing all the gold from the Americas I believe.