Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 74 posts

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#21

Post by intended »

mruniverse wrote: post #7
rapsey wrote: post #3

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

We laude past figures with our current criteria for acceptable behavior. Why not criticize?

The good parts and bad parts matter because of their contrast with the prevailing mores of their time.

to be unhappy that all of their views were not ahead of their time is to fail them for not being a moral singularity.

Such criticism is illogical, as it’s imposing an unfair and unreachable standard on all people.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#22

Post by cancelculture »

rapsey wrote: post #3

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

It's almost like cancel culture is running out of current day folk to attack, and is having to skim through the archives to feed their rabid reddit, facebook and twitter fetid output.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#23

Post by rapsey »

saiya-jin wrote: post #19
rapsey wrote: post #3

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

I don't see anything disturbing there. In fact, having double standards is far more disturbing to me, a mindset which can allow a lot of self-justifiable amoral behavior. Historical figures are what they are - part of history, nobody is/should be changing that. But if one wants to look up to somebody these days, have them as some sort of role model, well then they better be up to current (and ideally even future) sta…

> But if one wants to look up to somebody these days, have them as some sort of role model, well then they better be up to current (and ideally even future) standards.

Unless the person looking for a role model is insane, they will look at the parts of the person that they admire to emulate. Not every aspect and behavioral trait.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#24

Post by oh_sigh »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #15
rapsey wrote: post #3

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

What's the difference between discussing and 'taking down'? Is there any way to talk about this without disturbing you, or would you rather that this topic not be discussed at all?

Well, they literally took down a statue of Gandhi. I wonder if we just won't be able to have statues any more? Or, we can only have statues of people whose lives are largely inscrutable or unknown to the public.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#25

Post by intended »

tim333 wrote: post #8
dagw wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hardly recent. I remember hearing this exact conversation about Gandhi at least 25 years ago.

Yeah some of his earlier stuff was never very PC eg. >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.”

And it’s a trend now to highlight those aspects/speeches and not highlight the change in his beliefs and maturity- essentially Gandhi is a story of someone who overthrew the stereotypes of race shackling his mind.

But if you present only the first part of the story though, it’s easy to diminish him as racist.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#26

Post by rapsey »

JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #17
rapsey wrote: post #3

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

Gandhi already didn't meet the criteria for acceptable behavior during his lifetime though. It's just that people didn't know.

Such a person is always a person of extremes. The past just allowed for things to be hidden more then they can be now.

> Gandhi already didn't meet the criteria for acceptable behavior during his lifetime though.

That is always a matter of context. If you ask the British at the time no aspect of his met the criteria of acceptable behavior.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#27

Post by CathedralBorrow »

rapsey wrote: post #20
mruniverse wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We laude past figures with our current criteria for acceptable behavior. Why not criticize?

Because we laud them for their undeniable achievements. Criticizing with current criteria of acceptable behavior is just an ad hominem.

I think it's quite healthy to be able to discuss say, a person's legacy, from different angles rather than restrict discussion to only the good parts.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#28

Post by nabla9 »

rapsey wrote: post #3

This recent trend of taking down past figures because they do not meet current criteria for acceptable behavior in society is disturbing. It's like people are trying to erase lessons from the past.

Their failings don't remove their achievements.

In the case of Gandhi it's not just the current criteria. Even during his time people saw him as a shitty person. It's good that we stop worshiping great men.

Rabindranath Tagore saw him as a nihilist with fierce joy of annihilation. Many Dalits (untouchables) saw Gandhi as the enemy. While he worked alongside them in some aspects, he was patronizing towards them. Ambedkar said that Gandhi did not deserve to be called mahatma.

Gandhi was monster towards his family. He denied education for his family and tried to force his sons to celibacy. He was against giving his wife penicillin to safe her life for religious reasons and she died. When he himself became a sick soon after, taking quinine was suddenly OK.

Gandhi was a fanatical opponent of sex for pleasure. But just because he didn't do intercourse didn't mean he was not sexually active. For all his celibacy, he had a harem of teenage girls who fought hysterically for the opportunity to sleep naked with him and hold him. Those same girls also gave him his daily enema. He was in today's terminology into 'assplay' and practiced erotic sexual denial with underage girls.

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#29

Post by CathedralBorrow »

oh_sigh wrote: post #24
CathedralBorrow wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between discussing and 'taking down'? Is there any way to talk about this without disturbing you, or would you rather that this topic not be discussed at all?

Well, they literally took down a statue of Gandhi. I wonder if we just won't be able to have statues any more? Or, we can only have statues of people whose lives are largely inscrutable or unknown to the public.

The University of Ghana removed a statue of Gandhi last year, that had been there since 2016, after several professors petitioned for its removal. Is this the takedown you are referring to, that makes you fear about all statues in general?

Re: Gandhi Is Deeply Revered, but His Attitudes on Race and Sex Are Under Scrutiny

#30

Post by mruniverse »

guitarbill wrote: post #18
mruniverse wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We laude past figures with our current criteria for acceptable behavior. Why not criticize?

There's a difference between giving past figures a pass for horrible things, and invalidating them via nit-picking. Life is not black and white, so wanting to see saints instead of flawed humans who made the world a bit or a lot better is probably not a great approach. Everybody will have some flaw if you look hard enough. People can also change. Maybe they would have benefited from growing up in a different environm…

Is it possible to celebrate the good things someone has done without it being a full endorsement of everything they ever did and said?

I guess that depends if you're the injured party. If not, that might make criticisms seem "nit-picking".

Post reply on HN