Split off discussion about Ghandi and his Pacifism Philosophy

[DarthOne]

I'd have washed my hands and told her to throw her people and herself at the barrels of her enemies. Maybe they will stop shooting once they have witnessed the "indomitable will of the pacifists" or some shite.

No, I really don't like pacifism, why'd you ask?

Old Howard had a thing or two to say about it too....

Pacifist War Song—1917
By H. P. Lovecraft

We are the valiant Knights of Peace
Who prattle for the Right:
Our banner is of snowy fleece,
Inscribed: “TOO PROUD TO FIGHT!”

By sweet Chautauqua’s flow’ry banks
We love to sing and play,
But should we spy a foeman’s ranks,
We’d proudly run away!

When Prussian fury sweeps the main
Our freedom to deny;
Of tyrant laws we ne’er complain,
But gladsomely comply!

We do not fear the submarines
That plough the troubled foam;
We scorn the ugly old machines—
And safely stay at home!

They say our country’s close to war,
And soon must man the guns;
But we see naught to struggle for—
We love the gentle Huns!

What tho’ their hireling Greaser bands
Invade our southern plains?
We well can spare those boist’rous lands,
Content with what remains!

Our fathers were both rude and bold,
And would not live like brothers;
But we are of a finer mould—
We’re much more like our mothers!

Mind you, I'm a person who thinks America would have been better off in the long run either 1) not electing Wilson and getting in earlier and thus ending the war sooner or 2) Joining in the war on the side of the Central powers.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

I'd have washed my hands and told her to throw her people and herself at the barrels of her enemies. Maybe they will stop shooting once they have witnessed the "indomitable will of the pacifists" or some shite.

Gandhi's passive-aggressive pacifism was undeniably effective against the British, because the British were reluctant to continue murdering unarmed nonviolent protesters; the British Raj had taken severe and widespread public backlash after the brutal crushing and machine-gunning of non-violent Khudai Khidmatgar protesters at the Qissa Khwani Bazaar by armored cars.

However, Gandhi did not advocate pacifism as an effective way of resisting an enemy that could not be defeated militarily, but as a moral mandate regardless of effectiveness; he outright said the Jews were wrong to have violently resisted the Nazis.

(Here, too, he was a blatant hypocrite; elsewhere in his writings, he stated that the Indians had a moral right to resist violently if need be, and that it would even have been been morally acceptable to use the nuclear bomb against the British if no other means was available. But this applied only to his own people; for everyone else, nonviolent resistance was the only moral option.)

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

Gandhi's passive-aggressive pacifism was undeniably effective against the British, because the British were reluctant to continue murdering unarmed nonviolent protesters; the British Raj had taken severe and widespread public backlash after the brutal crushing and machine-gunning of non-violent Khudai Khidmatgar protesters at the Qissa Khwani Bazaar by armored cars.

However, Gandhi did not advocate pacifism as an effective way of resisting an enemy that could not be defeated militarily, but as a moral mandate regardless of effectiveness; he outright said the Jews were wrong to have violently resisted the Nazis.

(Here, too, he was a blatant hypocrite; elsewhere in his writings, he stated that the Indians had a moral right to resist violently if need be, and that it would even have been been morally acceptable to use the nuclear bomb against the British if no other means was available. But this applied only to his own people; for everyone else, nonviolent resistance was the only moral option.)

Funny how full of lies the history courses in schools are about these "Great" Men...

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Funny how full of lies the history courses in schools are about these "Great" Men...

If history shows anything, it shows that no person is without their clay feet. The way I see it, it's important not to idolize anyone in the sense of expecting them to be some kind of perfect paragon; no one ever lives up to that.

 

[Bear Ribs]

(Here, too, he was a blatant hypocrite; elsewhere in his writings, he stated that the Indians had a moral right to resist violently if need be, and that it would even have been been morally acceptable to use the nuclear bomb against the British if no other means was available. But this applied only to his own people; for everyone else, nonviolent resistance was the only moral option.)

Wait, Civilization Ghandi is actually similar to real-life Ghandi?

 

[Lord Sovereign]

If history shows anything, it shows that no person is without their clay feet. The way I see it, it's important not to idolize anyone in the sense of expecting them to be some kind of perfect paragon; no one ever lives up to that.

It's one of the reasons I respect the men of the ancient world a bit more than those of recent years. Their heroes were a great deal more flawed, more human, than say Rosa Parks or Ghandi. Yet despite their flaws, and these were gaping flaws, they could still show honour and do virtuous things.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Wait, Civilization Ghandi is actually similar to real-life Ghandi?

Well not quite. His position for India was that nonviolence was in all situations the most morally upright and virtuous means of resistance, but that violence was acceptable if necessary, and that it was morally justified over inaction.

His position for all causes other than his own was that nonviolence was the only morally acceptable option, even going so far as to directly and explicitly criticize European Jews for violently resisting the Nazis. Note that unlike his infamous (and sometimes partially misrepresented) letter urging the British to surrender to Hitler, his criticism of the Jews came after the war, when the full measure of the Holocaust was known.