Who would you vote for?/Who would win?

[Franzl]

Inspired by DWTL:

Adolf Hitler vs. Mahatma Gandhi

PS: poll is for who you would vote for.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Gandhi, but I throw up at the idea of voting for either one of them

Franzl, Franzl, always picking two people I don't like

[JohnFKennedy]

What's your problem with Gandhi?

Btw, his name was Mohandas Gandhi, not Mahatma Gandhi. 'Mahatma' is a title; it means 'Great Soul' I believe.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What's your problem with Gandhi?

Jews aren't the only religious group that Down is on the record as hating; he has something against Hindus as well.

[Person Man]

What's your problem with Gandhi?

Jews aren't the only religious group that Down is on the record as hating; he has something against Hindus as well.

Yeah, he's sort of like the forum's Cartman.

[DownWithTheLeft]

What's your problem with Gandhi?

Jews aren't the only religious group that Down is on the record as hating; he has something against Hindus as well.

Actually not really.  I don't like Gandhi because I don't believe in all that peaceful revolution/marxist crap

[DownWithTheLeft]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

[Franzl]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

but it often leads to anti-semetism, because the 2 are pretty much connected. As we see with Mr. Constine as an example.

[DownWithTheLeft]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

but it often leads to anti-semetism, because the 2 are pretty much connected. As we see with Mr. Constine as an example.

They really aren't, because honestly I could care less if the Jews have a homeland (I mean that in the positive), just not there.  Its like knocking boy the Boys and Girls club in Compton to build a mansion for a rich white family and then trying to defend the rich people from attacks on the ghetto.  It just doesn't make sense

[Franzl]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

but it often leads to anti-semetism, because the 2 are pretty much connected. As we see with Mr. Constine as an example.

They really aren't, because honestly I could care less if the Jews have a homeland (I mean that in the positive), just not there.  Its like knocking boy the Boys and Girls club in Compton to build a mansion for a rich white family and then trying to defend the rich people from attacks on the ghetto.  It just doesn't make sense

I didn't mean you in particular. Just that many people start with Israel, and gradually become anti-semitists. At least in my experience.

[JohnFKennedy]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

Is it me that you're calling 'Mr. Term of Service'? If it is, you're barking up the wrong tree as my post makes no mention of Jews or Judaism. I asked why you didn't like Gandhi, who, by the way, was not really a 'Marxist'.

What's your issue with non-violent resistance?

[DownWithTheLeft]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

Is it me that you're calling 'Mr. Term of Service'? If it is, you're barking up the wrong tree as my post makes no mention of Jews or Judaism. I asked why you didn't like Gandhi, who, by the way, was not really a 'Marxist' in the strictest sense.

What's your issue with non-violent resistance?

No, no, I was talking about Al who usually accuses me of violating ToS

I just don't like non-violent resistance, its just one of those things that doesn't sit well with me.  I feel like its something that's done for sympathy and the like and people usually give in

[Franzl]

What's your problem with Gandhi?

Jews aren't the only religious group that Down is on the record as hating; he has something against Hindus as well.

Actually not really.  I don't like Gandhi because I don't believe in all that peaceful revolution/marxist crap

Interesting actually. I don't necessarily believe it always works, but it does sometimes, you can'T deny that.

And besides that, I don't have to believe in or agree with someone's ideology in order to like him. I admire Gandhi as a person for his views.

[dead0man]

If the Pali's had been following Gandhi and King they wouldn't be in the sh**tty place they are today.  I agree that being passive doesn't always work, especially if the group your protesting is authoritarian in nature, but it's worked when the people in charge were part of a liberal democracy as in the case with Gandhi and MLK.

[Eraserhead]

Gandhi

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BTW Mr. Term of Service, labeling me as hating Jews is quite slanderous when I've never made a comment to that effect.  (BTW anti-zionism is not anti-semetism)

1. It's not slander if it's written down. The correct word is "libel".
2. It's not libel if it's not defamatory.

[JohnFKennedy]

If the Pali's had been following Gandhi and King they wouldn't be in the sh**tty place they are today.  I agree that being passive doesn't always work, especially if the group your protesting is authoritarian in nature, but it's worked when the people in charge were part of a liberal democracy as in the case with Gandhi and MLK.

I think you're letting the British Empire off very lightly there and I think the victims of the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and the 1930 Qissa Khawani Bazaar massacre would agree with me.

British colonial policy - and also attitudes - could hardly be described as liberal; there was always a clear racial hierarchy. If you're interested, I could recommend quite a few academic texts on the topic but there are also works of fiction like Doris Lessing's The Grass is Singing and George Orwell's Burmese Days which make clear the racial attitudes of colonials and settlers.

Unfortunately, it wasn't quite as simple as non-violent protestors demonstrating to a liberal government the error of their ways.

[dead0man]

Yes, sometimes people die when they resist non-violently and the Brits were horrible in India for the longest time.  I'm not sure where you got that I thought otherwise.  But what caused the Brits to "let India go"?  Was it the violent revolt of the victims?  Or was it the hearts and minds of the Brits at home changing how they felt about keeping brown people down by force?  Some third thing?  Did the Black Panthers help or hurt the Civil Rights movement?  What about King?  Did violence "fix" South Africa?  I'm not saying there is never a time for violence, nor will non-violent revolt always work, but it certainly can and has and I'd bet my last dollar that if the Pali's had been practicing that method of resistance for the last 50 years they'd be a lot better off today.

Non-violent revolution can work in a liberal democracy.

[NDN]

What's your problem with Gandhi?

Jews aren't the only religious group that Down is on the record as hating; he has something against Hindus as well.

Actually not really.  I don't like Gandhi because I don't believe in all that peaceful revolution/marxist crap

Gandhi was a racist hypocrite too. It's a really lousy choice.

[JohnFKennedy]

Yes, sometimes people die when they resist non-violently and the Brits were horrible in India for the longest time.  I'm not sure where you got that I thought otherwise.  But what caused the Brits to "let India go"?  Was it the violent revolt of the victims?  Or was it the hearts and minds of the Brits at home changing how they felt about keeping brown people down by force?  Some third thing?  Did the Black Panthers help or hurt the Civil Rights movement?  What about King?  Did violence "fix" South Africa?  I'm not saying there is never a time for violence, nor will non-violent revolt always work, but it certainly can and has and I'd bet my last dollar that if the Pali's had been practicing that method of resistance for the last 50 years they'd be a lot better off today.

Non-violent revolution can work in a liberal democracy.

Apologies if I misunderstood your post. I took your last sentence to be a suggestion that it was a combination of non-violent resistance and liberal democracy which led to Indian independence, when I think the reality is more complex. I also don't really consider Britain to have been much of a liberal democracy when it came to interaction with its colonial subjects.

On your questions - the answer is almost inevitably a combination of all factors because they almost always interact with one another and have their own part to play. Economic circumstances, the ideological conclusions of the Second World War, the advent of the Cold War, changing opinions and nationalist movements all had their part to play in the creation of independent states throughout much of what had once been the colonised world.

[dead0man]

Oh for sure there were a lot more factors in the freeing of the Indian's (and the rest of the Brit empire still intact at the time) than just a bunch of people refusing to clean the white man's toilet.  It certainly isn't a very "clean" example of my main point.  I think King is though.  King made white people feel guilty and then change.  He changed our entire culture and the way we view race in this country and he did it without a gun or a hammer.  He did it with honesty and peace.  Rev. King's actions wouldn't have worked in Soviet Russia or under the PRC.  But they would work in Norway.  They would work in Canada.  And I think they would have worked in Palestine.

It might be to late for it now though, I don't know.