Forum Post: Arundhati Roy @ OWS : "The Right To Dream ; We Are Fighting For Justice."
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 9:39 p.m. EST by shadz66
(19985)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
“Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds… Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free.” - Arundhati Roy.
Please see : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29766.htm for her speech to OWS @ "The People’s University" - Held at Judson Memorial Church 11/16/11.
Lal Salaam !
Some of Gandhi's other ideas (e.g. racism).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/28/mahatma-gandhi-bisexual-_n_841410.html
So The Pseudo-Progressive (All In A)Huff. Post carries a 'story' re a book by an Ex- 'New York Times' editor and then also proceeds to quote 'The Wall Street Journal' ... and what ?
Are you suggesting that the rest of us should nod sagely and accept these self-serving & revisionist character assassinations, slurs and innuendo ?! Cui Bono ?
I've seen your posts before ... and your bona fides re. OWS, are suspect to say the least ..
ad iudicium .
Your opinion of my posts or 'OWS bonafides' are irrelevant. Gandhi's racism is well known, documented in various sources besides the new book. There was a high profile piece about him in Time Magazine several years ago. Even the mostly positive spun Wikipedia article on Gandhi references his racism. Facts is facts.
Gandhi, like Washington, Jefferson, Adam, Lincoln etc. was a product of his times. You wish to portray him in as dim a light as possible, in order to denigrate his Philosophy. You 'play the man' because you despise His Ideas.
Not only you but also The Huff. Post, NY Times & The Wall $t. Journal are Anti-All Things Occupy ; Pro Status Quo, Reactionaries.
"Facts is Facts" ...
Q.E.D.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the inevitable "product of his times excuse". If he lived longer ago or was famous for something other than being supposedly a lover of humanity you might have a point, but for a racist apartheid supporter to be compared constantly to Martin Luther King and described as a peaceful lover of humanity is really weird. The fact that he resented discrimination against Indians but approved of it for blacks is profoundly obnoxious and not excused by the time in which he lived.
As far as hating 'His' ideas, yeah, you're right, I think his racist ideas about blacks were repugnant. The warm and fuzzy Gandhi of myth sounds great; too bad he didn't actually exist.
I notice you capitalize the 'H' in "His" in reference to Gandhi; do you think he's a god? Lol!
Also, you really think the NY Times and HuffPo are anti-OWS? You are clueless. The WSJ, Fox News, the NY Post, sure, but the Times and HP? You're deluded.
Your specious & dissembling attempt at an argument are self-revelatory.
For you to regard Gandhi as a proponent of Apartheid and for you to regard his incomplete & immature views at a younger age to be congruent and in accord with those he held when he was older, is disingenuous. However, at least you admit your lack of reason and equanimity as you hate him for what you regard him to be.
I myself merely think that his ideas re. Non-Violence are extremely important in The U$A where each of the numerous Police, Law Enforcement & Security Agencies AND The Populace At Large ... are armed to the teeth !!
Thanx for your cheap shot re. my capital 'H' and IF you regard The NY Times and The Huff.Post as somehow PRO-OWS, then it is you who are deluded !!
fiat lux ...
[Note the CAPS; sure sign of a loon.]
Gandhi never abandoned his racist views; even his staunchest defenders only claim they were 'less severe' in his later years. He was also an admirer of Hitler. He was an extremely flawed man whom has been romanticized into something he wasn't by naive Westerners.
Gandhi being human, was of course flawed but he is still held in very high regard throughout his native India and the world at large. Throwing in Hitler references and your 'ad hominem' attacks on Gandhi in general, are ultimately irrelevant and only really attest to YOUR own graceless iconoclasm.
My purpose in mentioning Gandhi was primarily to draw attention to Satyagraha ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha ). Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela are amongst those influenced by these ideas which make your own rancid 'mala fides' ramblings pale into utter inconsequence.
CAPS, btw are for Emphasis ...
HALF-WIT.
You obviously don't know what an adhominem attack is. I haven't made any adhominem attacks on Gandhi, I criticized very specific ideas of his that are universally considered repugnant. The references to Gandhi's admiration for Hitler are entirely relevant and factual. You apparently have no clue what an iconoclast is.
It's really very simple; considering the fact that Gandhi is thought of by so many as being a paragon of virtue when in fact he held many repugnant views is well worth pointing out. Clinging chauvinistically to a fraudulent romantic image of Gandhi as some sort of morally supreme being is simply foolish. In your own way your like the sort of person who scoffs at the notion that 'the great Christopher Columbus' was a racist murderer. It's the same thing; someone points out that the romantic image of your hero is a myth and you want to cover your ears and kill the messenger.
You can't stomach the complex, rough edges of reality, preferring warm and fuzzy illusions to disturbing truths. I was shocked when I first heard about these unpleasant aspects of Gandhi's character. I was also initially skeptical. That's fine; but I continued to read about it and check sources and realized it's true. It's sad to see see someone who appeared to be such a shining light was actually quite spectacularly flawed. But the facts are the facts, pleasant or not.
Of course, it's a good thing that MLK was inspired by the noble legend of Gandhi. The ironic fact that Gandhi held racist views of blacks doesn't invalidate non-violent resistance, or cancel out everything positive he ever did. But his unpleasant aspects weren't trivial or excusable. You're argument isn't with me, it's with the facts of history.
I've read the 1st para & then decided that life's too short so ...