South African Gandhi: A Racist/Classist?

[Michael]

Albert Einstein once remarked that generations to come will find it difficult to believe such a man like Gandhi existed. On January 31, 1948, in reference to Gandhi’s assassination, the great Canadian poet Wilson MacDonald wrote that “half the light of the world went out” and that Gandhi was “Christlike”. Indian delegate Mr. Ayyanger remarked that Gandhi was tallest and biggest man within moral grounds. With a fair understanding of Gandhi’s background within proto-independent India coupled with abovementioned comments, it is easy to assume and hence attribute a consistent Mahatma image to Gandhi during the course of his life. Thus, for the assumer, it would be true that the Mahatma-ness of Gandhi did not evolve from lesser than admirable states, but was consistently present within Gandhi during the course of his life. Or, perhaps, the Mahatma-ness emanated from a potentially life-altering event. An event such like the train ejection imposed upon Gandhi in May of 1893 because Gandhi was a ‘coolie’ or an ‘Asiatic’ within the first-class compartment.

It is my stance that Gandhi’s philosophy and status as a moral athlete had no identifiable beginning. Instead, Gandhi evolved into a moral champion. Moreover, it is my position that much of Gandhi’s philosophy and beliefs during his activism within South Africa is laced with what is arguably racist and classist overtones. Some evidences for my position is as follows:

Within the Green Pamphlet, Gandhi announced grievances that Indians are “put on the same level with the natives” and that Indians petitioned against this “invidious distinction”. The “invidious distinction” that Gandhi speaks of is not color discrimination, per se, but it was the European failure to distinguish between the natives and Indians.

Moreover, Gandhi complains within the Notes on the Grievances of British Indians that the Indian names were stricken from the voting records in hopes to lower the Indian “to the level of the South African Natives so that, in time to come, the respectable Indian may become an impossibility.”

Gandhi elsewhere complains a “most respectable Indian” (wealthy, well-dressed, educated, etc) cannot attend first or second-class carriages on the Transvaal Railways. The Indian, Gandhi complains, “is huddled together with the natives of all sorts and conditions in a third-class compartment. This is a cause of very great inconvenience to the Indian community in Transvaal.”

On September 26, 1896, in Gandhi’s Address to Bombay, Gandhi states that the Indian is facing a “continual struggle against degradation”...who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir.”

Within the Indian Opinion in March 1908, Gandhi remonstrated that he was prepared for hardships during his time in the Johannesburg jail, but “not quite for this experience. We could not understand being classed with the whites, but to be placed on the same level with the Natives (Black South Africans) seemed too much to put up with.” Gandhi went unto saying that such “degradation” is intended to “emasculate” Indians and it is also dangerous. Gandhi added it was dangerous because the “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized...[t]hey are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals...[t]he reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company.”

Within an interview to The Englishman on November 13, 1896, Gandhi complained that the “classifying of all Indians in one category and the non-recognition of the just place of the better class, is felt to be a great injustice”.

Even 14 years later in February of 1910, Gandhi reflects the same type of attitude within a letter to Mr. Price asking for regulations that do not bar people from first or second-class compartments based upon their skin color, but only class: “and any person traveling in a compartment other than that reserved for his class shall be deemed to have committed a breach...”

Some people may wish to point to Gandhi's contemporary adherence to the caste system to explain his attitudes towards the 'lower class' Indians and the 'raw Kaffirs'. I see two problems with this: the first is that there are quotes as listed above wherein Gandhi did referred to the 'Kaffir' and not the qualified 'raw Kaffir'. Secondly, in 1938 Gandhi proclaimed he begun his 'revolt' against the caste system as a little boy. Therefore, unless Gandhi begun his revolt against the caste system as a boy,dropped the revolt within South Africa but returned to his revolt in India, then there seems to be an inconsistency between Gandhi's actions and claims.
----
To be sure, my friends, in expection to Gandhi's South African years, I am nothing but an admirer of Gandhi. What I am presently against, however, is a romanticized version of Gandhi's life or something along the lines of Gandhi always acting in accordance to the highest moral standards. In a sense, my criticism is benefical for Gandhi's philosophy because it shows that once classist (and racist?) man can live a life of moral excellence.

[Esocyn]

This same kind of romanticizing can be seen with figures like the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa.

[Michael]

I found it shocking that in his autobiography, written in the late 1920s, Gandhi indirectly reaffirmed what he had wrote in the Indian Opinion. Consider the following:

" I cannot recall a word in those articles set down without thought or deliberation, or a word in those articles (Indian Opinion) of concious exaggeration....In fact, the tone of the Indian Opinion compelled the critic to curb his own pen.' -pp286.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Ghandi thought that the Jews should have just walked into the gas chambers rather than, you know, resist genocide.

He quit boning his wife because he felt it was unfair to everyone else in the world.

He stopped associating with his son for trying to become a lawyer--like he was.

Romanticized like you wouldn't believe.

[cape_royds]

Orwell long thought that Gandhi, by advocating non-violent resistance, was used as an instrument of British imperial rule in India. However, even Orwell eventually felt he had to give the devil his due in his essay, "Reflections on Gandhi."

Gandhi was a ruthless pacifist. What I mean by that is that Gandhi was quite willing to embrace the utmost consenquences of nonviolent resistance, even to accepting the massacre of one's entire people.

For a revolutionary leader operating on the grand scale, I think that Gandhi did less evil than most, and far less evil than was in his power to perform.

[Ray Moscow]

An acquaintance of mine was a former Gandhi devotee who gradually became disillusioned with some of his ideas and attitudes. He's writing a biography on Gandhi's South Africa years, which as the OP says included some very racist stuff.

Basically this shows that Gandhi was not above the racism that was common in his day.

[laughing dog]

Oh no, someone else was not perfect.

[Ray Moscow]

Oh no, someone else was not perfect.

Penn & Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on Mother Teresa and Gandhi (including an interview with my friend). Basically they just objected to his "Mahatma" title -- he was just a man, with many faults like the rest of us.

Mother Teresa was an immoral troll bitch, though.

[Esocyn]

Oh no, someone else was not perfect.

That's kind of the point. They're romanticized and considered perfect saints, but the truth is drastically different.

[Michael]

Ghandi thought that the Jews should have just walked into the gas chambers rather than, you know, resist genocide.

He quit boning his wife because he felt it was unfair to everyone else in the world.

He stopped associating with his son for trying to become a lawyer--like he was.

Romanticized like you wouldn't believe.

Gandhi's advice to the Jews was consistent with both satyagraha and ahimsa. It was consistent with Gandhi's views that made him an example of what is perceived as moral excellence. The rest of your post is just blatant misinformation.

[Michael]

Penn & Teller did a "Bullshit" episode on Mother Teresa and Gandhi (including an interview with my friend). Basically they just objected to his "Mahatma" title -- he was just a man, with many faults like the rest of us.

Mother Teresa was an immoral troll bitch, though.

Gandhi objected to the Mahatma title.

[Michael]

An acquaintance of mine was a former Gandhi devotee who gradually became disillusioned with some of his ideas and attitudes. He's writing a biography on Gandhi's South Africa years, which as the OP says included some very racist stuff.

Basically this shows that Gandhi was not above the racism that was common in his day.

Granted. However, This does not mean Gandhi was always not above the racism that was present within his day.

[Michael]

In my research, I have came across some sources that I have yet to seen in any scholarship. Consider the following within the Indian Opinion although not by Gandhi:

"Moreover, the distinction that has been made as between classes will also favor educated persons. We have never opposed any distinction being made in their favour. For education--true education--will always enjoy respect....There are natural distinctions of class which no one can oppose. Our fight is against artifical class distinctions."

-----

Ray Moscow, if your friend would like to refer to this point, send him to The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (January-August 1908), pp.84.

[laughing dog]

Gandhi's advice to the Jews was consistent with both satyagraha and ahimsa. It was consistent with Gandhi's views that made him an example of what is perceived as moral excellence. The rest of your post is just blatant misinformation. I suggest you get your facts straight. Ghandi did have a falling out with his son over him becoming a lawyer. Ghandi did unilaterally become celibate for a number of reasons, one of which is given by JTDC.

[Michael]

I suggest you get your facts straight. Ghandi did have a falling out with his son over him becoming a lawyer. Ghandi did unilaterally become celibate for a number of reasons, one of which is given by JTDC.

I humbly suggest you learn how to spell his name.

You'll notice (or should) that I need not have an objection to neither a mere 'falling out' over his son becoming a lawyer nor Gandhi becoming celibate 'for a number of reasons'.

[laughing dog]

I humbly suggest you learn how to spell his name.

You'll notice (or should) that I need not have an objection to neither a mere 'falling out' over his son becoming a lawyer nor Gandhi becoming celibate 'for a number of reasons'. So, your statement that The rest of your post is just blatant misinformation. referrred to?

[Michael]

So, your statement that The rest of your post is just blatant misinformation. referrred to?

That Gandhi

He quit boning his wife because he felt it was unfair to everyone else in the world.

He stopped associating with his son for trying to become a lawyer--like he was.


Your conveyance of this was not what I'd call accurate.
----


On a side note: Did you guys know the word 'Kaffir' was thought of as an insult even in Gandhi's time?

[laughing dog]

That Gandhi



Your conveyance of this was not what I'd call accurate. Well, then you should get your facts straight. Gandhi did have falling out with his son over him becoming a lawyer. Ghandi did unilaterally become celibate for a number of reasons, one of which is given by JTDC.
----


On a side note: Did you guys know the word 'Kaffir' was thought of as an insult even in Gandhi's time? It was an insult before that

Kaffir_%28Historical_usage_in_southern_Africa%29

[Pavlov's Dog]

I was never a fan of Gandhi as a person. I also had a problem with a lot of his ideas. If you try to look at the ideas, instead of just the person, then it is easier to pick them apart. You can take the good, and leave the bad. If it is a package deal with Ghandi, you are going to get stuck with a lot of garbage.

[Michael]

Well, then you should get your facts straight. Gandhi did have falling out with his son over him becoming a lawyer. Ghandi did unilaterally become celibate for a number of reasons, one of which is given by JTDC.
----

It was an insult before that

Kaffir_%28Historical_usage_in_southern_Africa%29

The word 'falling out' is vague and there is a background to this that was not mentioned by the poster. moreover, i did not deny Gandhi's celibacy was for a 'number of reasons'.

Btw, where are your sources? I'd love for you to educate me.

[laughing dog]

The word 'falling out' is vague and there is a background to this that was not mentioned by the poster. moreover, i did not deny Gandhi's celibacy was for a 'number of reasons'.

Btw, where are your sources? I'd love for you to educate me.
Gandhi's autobiography.

[Michael]

Gandhi's autobiography.

Great. I own it. What page?

[laughing dog]

Great. I own it. What page? I do not have the page bookmarked, but it occurs in the last 1/4 of the book or so.

[Michael]

I do not have the page bookmarked, but it occurs in the last 1/4 of the book or so.



Of course.

[laughing dog]

Of course. I suggest reading the entire autobiography - it is a good read.

BTW - the accusation of misinformation is usually accompanied with some sort of substantive or evidence based rationale, something conspicuously absent from your post.

[Michael]

I suggest reading the entire autobiography - it is a good read.

I have read the whole autobiography. At the moment, I am still waiting for your exact reference.


BTW - the accusation of misinformation is usually accompanied with some sort of substantive or evidence based rationale, something conspicuously absent from your post.

If this is your implict attempt to speak of an obligation, then it also applies to you. Moreover, , let us not forget the burden of evidence to those who made the inital claim itself. Somehow, I doubt: 'somewhere in the 1/4 of the book' is a sufficient reference.

But, i confess: I do owe you a reference. And, so, you should have no problems allowing me to utilize your idea of scholarship: My evidence against your position is found somewhere in Gandhi's Autobiography.

Wow. Adopting your outlook makes debate easy!

[laughing dog]

I have read the whole autobiography. Good for you. Then you should have no trouble finding or recalling the passages.


If this is your implict attempt to speak of an obligation, then it also applies to you. Moreover, let us not forget the burden of evidence to those who made the inital claim itself. I did not make the initial claim. I am beginning to get an idea why you did not know the reason(s) for Gandhi's celibacy.


Wow. Adopting your outlook makes debate easy! Where is this debate? All I see is half-assed whining.

[Michael]

Good for you. Then you should have no trouble finding or recalling the passages.

The passages for your claims? I don't believe they are in the book. Moreover, assuming you read his whole autobiography, then wouldnt the same apply to you?

I did not make the initial claim. I am beginning to get an idea why you did not know the reason(s) for Gandhi's celibacy.

I do know them. In fact, I have read from scholars on this issue. Have you ever read Nakedness, Nonviolence, and Brahmacharya: Gandhi's Experiments in Celibate Sexuality by Vinay Lal? I have. What about you, laughing dog? Dazzle me with your scholarship!

You have failed in this thread. f-a-i-l-e-d. Failed to provide a reference to your claims.


Where is this debate? All I see is half-assed whining.

Just to be clear: you are not able to produce any references, yes?

[Michael]

I did not make the initial claim. .

You agreed to it. You just did not state it first.

[laughing dog]

The passages for your claims? I don't believe they are in the book. You don't believe they are in the book? One would think if you had read it, you would either know the passages are in the book or not.

Moreover, assuming you read his whole autobiography, then wouldnt the same apply to you? It does. I read the damn book 30 years ago, so I am a little hazy on the precise location of anything in it.


I do know them. In fact, I have read from scholars on this issue. Have you ever read Nakedness, Nonviolence, and Brahmacharya: Gandhi's Experiments in Celibate Sexuality by Vinay Lal? Ah, you read scholars on the issue. Good for you, I hope you read them better than these posts or Gandhi's Autobiography.


You have failed in this thread. f-a-i-l-e-d. Failed to provide a reference to your claims. Thanks for grade. It means so much from someone who has shown Gandhi was not perfect.

Just to be clear: you are not able to produce any references, yes? False. In fact, if you read your own post, you agree I provided a reference. Hmmm.

[Michael]

You don't believe they are in the book? One would think if you had read it, you would either know the passages are in the book or not.

Depends what you mean by the word 'know'. But, I don't see a good need to get into epistemology, LD and I doubt you could keep up with me in it. Do you have any training in epistemology...at all? Maybe a book you read...30 years ago?

It does. I read the damn book 30 years ago, so I am a little hazy on the precise location of anything in it.


*thumbs up* I'll guess i'l just have to take your word on a roughly 500+ page book you read 30 years ago. Outstanding. I hope you 'contribute' to my future threads because it is obvious your opinion is well supported and authoritative.

[laughing dog]

Depends what you mean by the word 'know'. And it depends on what you mean by the word "believe". In any event, I agree with you - not only could I not keep up with someone who cannot tell the difference between knowledge and belief, but I have no desire to.

I hope you 'contribute' to my future threads because it is obvious your opinion is well supported and authoritative. You mean threads like this one that point out the obvious "X was not perfect"? and misrepresent or misread what is plainly written?

[Michael]

And it depends on what you mean by the word "believe". In any event, I agree with you - not only could I not keep up with someone who cannot tell the difference between knowledge and belief, but I have no desire to.

You mean threads like this one that point out the obvious "X was not perfect"? and misrepresent or misread what is plainly written?



There is debate in regards to knowledge and mere belief. People educated in epistemology, like me, understand this. But, I always find it cute to see others act like they know better.

The point was not to illustrate Gandhi's imperfection (an understatement) but to offer specific historical evidence against the wholly romanticized narrative of Gandhi's life. Moreover, I further stated why this is beneficial to his philosophy rather than something we should percieve as negative.

Perhaps you missed that.

[laughing dog]

There is debate in regards to knowledge and mere belief. People educated in epistemology, like me, understand this. Thanks for the clarification. I know I feel educated.


The point was not to illustrate Gandhi's imperfection (an understatement) but to offer specific historical evidence against the wholly romanticized narrative of Gandhi's life. Since no one here was engaged in such behavior, nor had anyone here expressed such romantic characterizations, I misread your your point as a straw man. I apologize for my mistake.