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.

Beach - well that description of his biographies is still the sort of 'close friend says'. And I couldn't help noticing that the authors are simply quoting each other, as if it's 'news just in'. < I'm not a MG cor defender, just exercising my bullshit radar>

Silli - I've quoted twice now on the support for honour killing. I think it would be cluttering up the thread to quote it again.

oh dear. "According to Mr Fischer..." who for this thread serves as 'a close friend said......'.

beach I really do not care for your opinion as it seems very narrow minded, sheltered and unintellectual.
These were Gandhis views. So currently, Buddhist nuns are burning themselves to highlight oppression against Tibet by China and the Dalai Lama is quiet on this. What does that mean?! Oh, he must be a 'b' too!!! (i cannot bring myself to use uncomplementry words against people I admire just so that it 'fun' on mn.) Because again, beach with her small minded sheltered view of the world does not understand culture and context. Oh dear.

I think it's right to desanctify people - welcome their achievements without hero worshipping them. Most of us would not like what the Dalai Lama has to say about homosexuality but people don't really investigate it because they like the idea of him. As I said in the other thread anti women and anti gay sentiments tend to get overlooked when we select our heros.

Gosh.

Is it really so very taboo?

To talk about a man's misogyny.

It must be made up, can't be true, people are lying or interpreting things badly.

Mmmm.

Sili - I don't know how long you have been on MN, might I refer you to the Talk Guidelines. Although perhpas you have already read them because you have taken pains to specify that your comments are about 'Beach's opinion' and 'Beach's views'. (And why are you referring to me in the 3rd person when I'm on the thread?)

drjohn I agree. It is not good I blindly put people on pedestals and follow. That is how jihadist are formed. (Please not he use of my term jihadist to mean people blinded by one point of view to the extreme, nothing more). However, to discredit, malign, and discard people because of small flaws in their thinking that does not suit 100 years later to the current time is stupidity.

IMO it is pretty offensive to call either an arsehole. A reductive statement which utterly fails to recognize the good brought by both to millions of people.

Of course neither are saints and but I think it is also dangerous to judge, Gandhi in particular, solely by current western feminist thinking. I don't agree with every thought Gandhi had. But I do believe be was a great man and that society still has much to learn from his teachings.

Incidentally, I've no doubt that in the future lead western feminists of today will be similarly vilified for their stance on many things - whether it's transsexuals or eating meat or failing to recognize the non-western feminist experience, who knows. We all do the best in the times and culture we live within and that is all we can be judgd for.

Let me quote Gandhi himself here 'An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody see it.'

scroob so well said. I could not put
It so eloquently. Thank you.

www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/activities/essay_breakingshackles.htm

beach, linked attached for you.

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.

I think it's vitally important to discuss flaws in 'great people' and very dangerous indeed to try to stop discussion of their faults on the grounds that they 'did great things'. Robert Mugabe was regarded as a hero once, don't forget.

Right now a lot of unthinking people are peddling some whinyarse quote from the Dalai Lama about how awful the modern world is. I keep reminding them that while there may be a lot wrong in the world, there always has been and right now, Western democracies offer the best circumstances/way of life/opportunities for women that there has ever been, so far. Doesn't mean the battles are all won, not by a long way, but all this bullshit about going back to the past and the 'simpler life' always translates into women-as-chattels, inadequate medical care, death in childbirth and malnutrition all round.

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.

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.

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!!!

Lovely =lowly!!

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).

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.

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.

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!!

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.