Civil rights, but just for me
by Guest Contributor Tami, originally published at What Tami Said
I was going to begin this post be talking about Mohandas Gandhi. I was going to chastise Bernice King, daughter of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., and new leader of the civil rights organization Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), for her hateful pronouncement, recounted in The Guardian: “I know down in my sanctified soul that [MLK] did not take a bullet for samesex unions.”
I was going to point out that Gandhi, who is said to have inspired MLK, did not take a bullet for black Americans. His cause was the oppressed people of India. But the universal truth of his message–resistance to tyranny, nonviolence and the fundamental equality of all people–was as applicable on the North American continent as the Asian one. Bernice King’s father realized that. How small and hateful and contrary to the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi it would have been if, during the height of the U.S. Civil Rights movement, a surviving family member had proclaimed that “down in their souls” they were certain that Gandhi didn’t take a bullet for Negroes to ride on the front of the bus.
To my surprise, while doing a little research on the martyr known as “The Great One,” I discovered that, though time has cemented Gandhi in the public consciousness as a loving but determined champion for world equality. He may well not have supported civil rights for all marginalized people.
Some of Gandhi’s early South African articles are controversial. On 7 March 1908, Gandhi wrote in the Indian Opinion of his time in a South African prison: “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.”[14] Writing on the subject of immigration in 1903, Gandhi commented: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do… We believe also that the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race.”[15] During his time in South Africa, Gandhi protested repeatedly about the social classification of blacks with Indians, who he described as “undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs”.[16] It is worth noting that during Gandhi’s time, the term Kaffir had a different connotation than its present-day usage. Remarks such as these have led some to accuse Gandhi of racism.[17]
and…
In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi’s offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: “The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians”.[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23] In Gandhi’s opinion, the Draft Ordinance of 1906 brought the status of Indians below the level of Natives. He therefore urged Indians to resist the Ordinance along the lines of satyagraha by taking the example of “Kaffirs“. In his words, “Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the government. The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out passes.”[24]
I was wrong about Gandhi having a message of world equality. At least early in his life he believed that some people are more equal than others.
What is it about us that makes us fight for our own freedom and equality, but sit comfortably with the bondage and oppression of others? Even the man heralded as one of the world’s greatest civil rights leaders believed “all men are created equal”…but for those over there.
My discovery convinced me of two things:
The greatest battle for marginalized peoples may not be the biases of the majority culture, but the way those biases are embraced by minority cultures. How much stronger would all of the equality movements be if we were working together to cement the idea that EVERYONE, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, ability, etc., deserved basic human rights and respect? Instead, we learn to hate ourselves, while fighting to demonstrate our superiority over other marginalized people. We fight each other over scraps. We fail to leverage our own dehumanization as a tool to empathize with the dehumanization of others. Instead, we seek to demonstrate, as Gandhi once advocated in South Africa, “See, majority, we’re just like you. The pair of us are equally better than those people.” I deserve rights; they do not.
The fight for equality and human rights might well be over if marginalized people worked together. But we do not.
I think, this is also true: it does not matter what Gandhi thought of black people or what Martin Luther King thought of gay people. For all the deification, they are both just men, fallible men–men of a different time and place (Mohandas Gandhi was born in the 19th century, for goodness sake.), men who were just as influenced by the biases of their day as any of us are, men like those who wrote “all men are created equal” and yet owned men, women and children as property. Do we even know whether MLK would have approved of a woman (his daughter or no) as head of the SCLC? His views and treatment of women were not exactly enlightened. That Gandhi did not believe in the inherent equality of all brown people; that King may not have approved of gay marriage–I couldn’t care less.
TODAY matters. It matters that we come to understand that “divided we fall” in the battle for human rights. It matters that we learn that if you are not about justice for all, you are not about justice and that a civil rights organization that does not advocate for across the board human rights is not a civil rights organization. (This goes as much for homophobic black civil rights groups as it does for gay rights groups that marginalize people of color and transgender people.) And that a civil rights leader who takes time out from advocating for equality to call out who, in fact, should not be equal, is not much of a leader at all–pedigree be damned.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Roy wrote:
Speaking as someone of Indian descent whose grandfather marched with Gandhi I can tell you that the man single handedly stopped clashes between Hindus and Muslims in Bengal that prevented a British orchestred million native purge for the 10th time.
I find it hard to believe that he would like to differentiate himself from the native South Africans when the region that he comes from in India had African immigrants for centuries that have lived unmolested just as other immigrant groups like Persians and Jews in India.
I believe that these were typical British colonial efforts to malign the man. You are giving the British upper class a free pass by corroborating colonial propaganda of Divide and Rule. They have swept the horrible genocides in South Asia and Africa under the rug and to this day do not take responsibility for the Psychological damage Colonialism did to the world’s 2 ancient civilizations. Dr. Mandela would not have cited Gandhi as a source of inspiration if he did not see Gandhi as the Pioneer in the non violence movement against Colonialism.
I know that I would have embraced the violent protest methods like the people in South Africa did too if I lived in those days.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:03 am ¶
Jess wrote:
Beautiful last paragraph.
I’d offer also that Ghandi – and King, had he lived – might change views over time.
That is, the Ghandi who wrote what he did in 1906 is probably a different man than the one who walked around India and organized people in 1930 or 1945. People change. You are not the same person you were at 20 or 30 that you are at 40. (Having just had my 40th a while back I know whereof I speak
My 20-year-old self is sort of embarrassing to me these days).
King’s own views evolved over time as well. Especially with respect to labor issues, he moved rather leftward from where he was in 1954 by the time of his assassination in 1968.
Bernice King’s statement is just a reflection of the stasis that we tend to put our dead heroes in. We assume that they were always like they were just before they died. It diminishes their complexity as people, unfortunately, and is a step towards making them symbols, on which we project a lot of ourselves.
And Tami is dead on. What Ghandi and King thought in specific instances isn’t really relevant to struggles today, any more than the fact that Jefferson owned slaves invalidates the idea of voting or democratic governance. More important, it doesn’t invalidate the effort to expand those concepts — and this is why “strict constructionists” — I am looking at you, Clarence Thomas — are such a problem.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:10 am ¶
Xay wrote:
It is well known among black South Africans how Ghandi felt about them. I knew that Ghandi said these things long before reading this post because my mother, who is a black South African told me about them and her struggle to respect Ghandi because of his writings about black South Africans.
It is hard to admit that our heroes were not perfect people, but it does everyone a injustice to ignore facts.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:19 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
Gandhi is also not very well-regarded by many Dalit advocates, India’s “untouchable” lowest caste. He did address casteism in India, but many argue that it was in a patronizing way… he actually went on a hunger strike to prevent Dalits from electing their own leaders because he thought it would undermine solidarity against the British.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poona_Pact
The Dalit leader, Dr. Ambedkar, had no investment at all in Hindu unity, because Dalits were being oppressed by higher-caste Hindus, and he believed their lives were still going to suck whether or not the British were in charge. He ended up rejecting Hinduism entirely and leading many Dalits to convert to caste-free Buddhism. But in the Poona Pact, he was pressured into compromising with Gandhi because of the hunger strike, and the results of that for the Dalits are still negative today.
That being said, I agree with this post. There is no person in the world who is 100% pure. You have to focus on the good, but not let that prevent you from honestly discussing the bad. If you’re an extremist who rejects something because it’s not totally, absolutely, clean, fair and just towards everyone involved, you’re never going to get anything at all accomplished. I think the phrase “the perfect is the enemy of the good” sums it up nicely.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:29 am ¶
Xay wrote:
I don’t think that we should discard the prejudices of our historical civil rights icons. It was very eye opening to me when I read Marcus Garvey’s writings about native Africans. Although he felt that African Americans would be better off returning to Africa, he also felt that African Americans would civilize the native Africans and held the same views of native Africans as most whites did at the time.
I think the perspective is important as we look at building coalitions between communities of color. It helps to understand relationships between African Americans and native Africans if we look at the roots of that tension and the historical relationships within our communities.
It helps understand gender roles and sexism within African American leadership organizations if we really look at how our leaders have socialized us to view women in leadership roles – look at how many black churches refuse to accept women pastors.
It helps to understand the complexity of South African culture and racial tension if you look at how the racial classification created by apartheid era policies created tension between the racial and ethnic groups. Similar things happened in this country under Jim Crow laws – there were court cases by Latinos, Jews, and Asians who were asking to be classified as white so that their children could be sent to white schools.
I think that you can still respect and learn from leaders who held prejudices, but in terms of how those prejudices reflect and influence tensions that still exist today, you can’t completely ignore them.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:31 am ¶
Sobia wrote:
Thanks for writing this. Though most people will be unwilling to believe that Gandhi had racist tendencies, many people in the sub-continent (including many Indians) have doubts about Gandhi. Not to say that he didn’t do good things, but he was not perfect by any standards. He may have stopped clashes between Hindus and Muslims but he didn’t help Muslims. He wanted to maintain the status quo in which Muslims lived next to Hindus but were still an oppressed minority. (Many Pakistanis are not really fans of Gandhi because of this.) And I’m not sure of his views of Sikhs but I have some Sikh friends who really do not like the man.
One of my main problems with Gandhi has been that the resistance of the many, many, many, people before him, a resistance which started from the time the British set foot in the sub-continent, is completely ignored. They too were instrumental in making the British leave. Their resistance, much of it violent, was also fruitful. Their sacrifices should not be ignored. And this is a reason that many Indians too dislike, or perhaps are not so much in awe of, Gandhi.
Gandhi is a convenient example for oppressors to tell those they oppress that if you non-violently resist like Gandhi we will listen. Meanwhile they continue their very violent oppressions. It works great for the oppressors.
Anyhow, all this is not to say that Gandhi was a horrible person, but there is enough information out there to question and doubt the pedestal the world has put him on.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:44 am ¶
Maria P. wrote:
A-freakin’-men.
And there /is/ a lot of controversy around Gandhi’s views, particularly regarding Dalits and support for British wars. I’ve gotten into some real knock-down, drag-out fights with friends and colleagues about conspiracy theories and hidden agendas in South Asian independence movements. Talking about these kind of things is a sure way to make enemies; these are issues that are still very relevant.
However, I agree wholeheartedly with this analysis. Movements for equality make a devil’s bargain when they sell out others for a bit of favor from those in power.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:47 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
oh yeah, Tami, Gandhi hated Blacks. yes, he did! Oh, shit, do you know that some hardline Pakistani nationalists also claim that Gandhi secretly hated Muslims?
Let’s see, who else was Gandhi racist against?!
My grandfather was a Quit India activist who personally worked with Gandhi through-out the movement. He had nothing but PRAISE & ADMIRATION for the great man. Gandhi brought Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and lower caste Indians (Dalits) together in the unity against the British colonialists.
Please stop spreading around old British propaganda against Gandhi. Thanks.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 11:47 am ¶
atlasien wrote:
@DIMA: So every Indian who even mildly criticizes Gandhi (and there are many) is a working as a tool of British propaganda? In That’s really an unsupportable statement. Have you ever read anything by Dr. Ambedkar?
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
We should be careful about putting other human beings who exhibit great leadership on a pedestal. I am fully aware of Gandhi’s Hindustan philosophy but that does not take away his great achievements.
More importantly, why is their a litmus test for a man who lived in the 20th century under that era of thinking.
However, Dr. Amedkar has every right to criticize Gandhi for his stance on Africans and the lower castes, untouchables and tribals who represent the indigenous population of India.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 12:17 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@DIMA:
Why don’t you try to stop silencing voices of dissent? There are very legitimate concerns from many oppressed peoples of South Asia regarding Gandhi, and some not oppressed voices as well. You are just trying to shoot down these voices.
I can’t believe you would make fun of those who claim to be discriminated against! Just wow….
You do remember you’re at Racialicious right?
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶
RS wrote:
@Sobia
I don’t think we can really categorize Gandhi just from some quotes from the early 1900s.
In later years he did have a correspondence with WEB Du Bois, and a lot of his views changed over time.
I don’t really think its true that he wanted muslims to remain as an ‘oppressed’ minority. He had his faults but he was not anti-muslim.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:49 pm ¶
Tony wrote:
While I make no allusions to it being an ‘unbiased’ source, Penn & Tellers show (Which I won’t mention the name of) once did a thing on Ghandis shortcomings.
An ex-follower of Ghandi “G.B. Singh” said that “If you go to Volume 8 & 9 off the collected work of Mahatma Ghandi you can read Ghandis own writings about this racial hatred of black people”
(The show also had Ghandis grandson on, who less denied the claim than said “Well, it was a different time.”)
I don’t have a copy of the collected works of Ghandi, but if anyone is really interested in proving or disproving this, it seems like a good place to start.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:57 pm ¶
Ain't I an African wrote:
For me, a black African a.k.a. the lowest of the low, the dregs of humanity etc., it is important not to deify personalities. I’ve known for a long time about Gandhi’s self (i.e. community-self) serving inclinations and I’ve lost most of my respect for him.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 1:57 pm ¶
Cindy wrote:
Reading the comments and the stabs back and forth about Gandhi brings me back to Tami’s statement, “The greatest battle for marginalized peoples may not be the biases of the majority culture, but the way those biases are embraced by minority cultures.”
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:25 pm ¶
Tami wrote:
Please understand. The point of this post was not to bash Gandhi or Martin Luther King. My point is that even the greatest of human rights icons have had blind spots and biases. Clearly Bernice King has them. It is a mark of human frailty that hinders the ability of marginalized people to come together to achieve their goals.
As someone above said, people do evolve. Gandhi may have evolved. MLK may have evolved on issues had he not been killed. Be that as it may, it is unfair to invoke the names of these men as a reason to support or not support a cause (as Bernice King did). They were remarkable human beings, but they were imperfect human beings not gods. They were of their time and place. We can take the best of them, but needn’t take the bad.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:26 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
Were any of his later writings anti-black? People do evolve over a lifetime.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:38 pm ¶
ChristopherH wrote:
It seems to me that many commentators have missed the point of Tami’s piece. The question of whether civil rights leaders of the past may or may not support one’s own struggle has no bearing on its validity. Being human, neither Gandhi nor King were perfect. Many of us have certainly found disappointment in some of the particulars of their respective lives and careers. But we can all focus on their vision… a world in which all can be treated fairly and live free of discrimination and harassment… a world in which our intrinsic dignity as human beings and the merit of our work become the basis upon which we are valued by others… instead of some inborn, immutable characteristic.
I view Gandhi’s experience during the 1906 Zulu uprising as pivotal in the development of his understanding of the racist, economic exploitation of indigenous people’s around the world under European colonial projects. The ambulance corps which he organized spent far more time treating Zulu victims of the British than the British themselves, and his horror at that brutality radicalized him. Indeed, the famous Sep 11, 1906 meeting at the Jewish Empire Theater FOLLOWED that experience, as did Gandhi’s final abstinence vows. The term “Satyagraha” wasn’t even coined until 1906-07. His movement in South Africa didn’t turn to civil disobedience until 1907 as well. And Gandhi didn’t publish his first major tract, “Hind Swaraj” until 1908-09. Scholars widely recognize Gandhi’s time in South Africa as his formative period. One should consider the broad oeuvre of his life and work before rendering judgment on whether he was indeed a racist, as some here have suggested.
W. E. B. Dubois quoted Gandhi saying this to African-Americans in 1929:
“Let not the 12 million Negroes be ashamed of the fact that they are the grandchildren of slaves. There is dishonour in being slave-owners. But let us not think of honour or dishonour in connection with the past. Let us realise that the future is with those who would be pure, truthful and loving. For as the old wise men have said: Truth ever is, untruth never was. Love alone binds and truth and love accrue only to the truly humble.”
So… is it helpful to forget or deny the shortcomings of great leaders like Gandhi and King? Certainly not! But it is also not useful to remain endlessly preoccupied with them. I think it is more constructive to focus on the message they taught. And it seems to me that was the main thrust of Toni’s essay.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:45 pm ¶
ChristopherH wrote:
oops… “It seems to me that was the main thrust of TAMI’s essay.”
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 2:46 pm ¶
Roy wrote:
Sobi,
Sikhs and bengalis(my background) begrudge Gandhi mistakenly for the massive Hindu-Muslim purge pogroms that accompanied Partition though it was Jinnah and Nehru who were primarily responsible.Jinnah the founder of Pakistan had delusion of regaining lost Mughal power accrued thru the worst genocide of a culture ever perpetrated i.e forceful Muslim conversion of the Hindu sub continent . Karma is a Belated Bitch for Pakistan today as they continue be lackeys for western British meddling to this day in the sub continent.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 3:46 pm ¶
RS wrote:
Regarding Gandhi’s views, there are other quotes from him in later years about south africa such as :
” England has got successful competitors in America, Japan, France, Germany. It has competitors in the handful of mills in India, and as there has been an awakening in India, even so there will be an awakening in South Africa with its vastly richer resources — natural , mineral and human. The mighty English look quite pigmies before the mighty races of Africa. They are noble savages after all, you will say. They are certainly noble, but no savages and in the course of a few years the Western nations may cease to find in Africa a dumping ground for their wares.”
Gandhi, speaking at Oxford, October 24, 1931 (CWMG , Volume 48, p.225).
(iii) “You, on the other hand, are the sons of the soil who are being robbed of your inheritance. You are bound to resist that. Yours is a far bigger issue.” Gandhi to Rev S.S. Tema , member of the African Congress, January 1, 1939 (CWMG, Volume 68, pp 272-273.)
He wrote in Young India on October 14, 1926 about the “injustice that is being daily perpetrated against the Negro in the United States of America in the name of and for the sake of maintaining white superiority.” In the same article he reminded Indians that: “Our treatment of the so-called untouchables is no better than that of coloured people by the white man”. (CWMG, Vol 31, pp 492-493).
I don’t think that Gandhi was a saint or ‘messiah’ , he was fallible but i really don’t think we can brand him as a racist just from some early quotes or take away from what he did accomplish
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:08 pm ¶
yolanda wrote:
i found out about gandhi’s racism earlier this year after being bored and doing some research on him. it was a small blurb on his wikipedia page, and when i googled “gandhi racist” i was surprised to find so many articles analyzing and dissecting it–you would’ve thought the man was a saint.
because of his hateful words–viewing the s. africans as less than human, i find it hard to see him the way that i did as a child. i’ve never understood why the oppressed always look to find someone else who as equally oppressed and go, “well, at least i’m not them…but i guess that’s why i’m here.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶
Luis wrote:
Ok two points that should be clear to all commenters:
1) Gandhi wrote what he wrote. In his early life as a lawyer in South Africa, he wrote prolifically. You cannot ignore these positions or attitudes because they happen to serve, as you call it, a British divide-and-conquer mentality. In fact, there is every indication that at this point in his life he thought this would work out well for his people in South Africa.
2) That said, people change over time. This is a point that I feel is so easily lost in debates about figures. There is the notion that a public figure is an immutable quantity. Debates rage on to claim them in one camp or another. Gandhi went through many changes and epiphanies in his lifetime and his opinions on certain subjects change. Can you really believe an success-aspiring lawyer in colonial South Africa has the same opinions as an ascetic marcher and agitator in India?
If you love the man, respect his humanity–part of which is the ability to change and evolve.
Another point entirely, LGBTQ activists need to stop acting surprised when Black/Latino/Asian folks speak out against gay rights. This struggle isn’t Gay Rights vs. White Straight Men. Just as we need to do a better job of recognizing LGBTQ folks of color, we also need to recognize that they’re fighting battles in their own communities. This is a battle of mindsets that has multiple fronts. Stop wasting energy being outraged that some old Civil Rights-era leaders (or their children) aren’t coming to your defense and make your case to everyone who is resistant to your movement. They will come in many colors, they will speak many languages, and, yes, they will make outrageous arguments.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@Roy:
You may to re-read the history of Pakistan and Jinnah. Perhaps Jaswant Singh’s latest on Jinnah explaining Jinnah’s real vision, and not the biased one Indians have of him.
“worst genocide of a culture ever perpetrated i.e forceful Muslim conversion of the Hindu sub continent ”
Considering Muslims are still a minroty compared to the Hindus in the area, and that many of the Muslims in the region are not converts but rather came with the Muslims when they came, I have some serious doubts about this claim. Hindus are still by far the largest and most powerful group in India. If they had been wiped out I doubt that would be the case.
Could you provide a few sources for this claim?
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 4:43 pm ¶
AS wrote:
Interesting that the only source that has been provided for Gandhi’s anti-Black quotes is Wikipedia. Until an actually reliable non-Web source is furnished I will remain extremely skeptical of these claims.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:28 pm ¶
louise wrote:
Gandhi’s anti south african stance is well documented, i was introduced to them via black history month as a child in the 1990’s before the web and wiki.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶
brownstocking wrote:
Tami, I really needed this right now. I struggle with reconciling mortal-ness with the great things people do. So, I can’t really rock Miles Davis, considering he was an abuser.
This gives me food for thought, because I always wonder how much we should “credit” people with, when we know or find out how effed up they may in private life; I guess I wonder at levels of hypocrisy being tied into what they are proponents of.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 6:55 pm ¶
Cindy wrote:
“Another point entirely, LGBTQ activists need to stop acting surprised when Black/Latino/Asian folks speak out against gay rights. …Stop wasting energy being outraged that some old Civil Rights-era leaders (or their children) aren’t coming to your defense and make your case to everyone who is resistant to your movement.”
I think it imprudent to tell anyone how to feel/react when words of hate are directed at them.
Expressing outrage at the statements of Bernice King is part of making the case to EVERYONE, just as expressing outrage about Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, etc., etc. Singular targets arise and singular rebuttals will be launched, but don’t confuse that with a singular focus. The disappointment is that a child of MLK, whose wife has been such a champion of equal rights for the LBGT community, invoked her father’s name to promote her anti-gay hate speak agenda.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 7:26 pm ¶
No! The other left! wrote:
@AS/25:
Wikipedia cites “The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. 8. p. 199.” for the first quote.
gandhiserver.org appears to have the collected works of Gandhi online, and the volume eight contains the first quote (”Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized…”) on page 199:
http://www.gandhiserve.org/cwmg/VOL008.PDF
Google Book search also finds the quote in multiple published versions of the volume eight:
http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Kaffirs+are+as+a+rule+uncivilized%22&btnG=Search+Books
I didn’t bother to check the other quotes.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 7:30 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
“The evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
Or is it the other way around?
I think, in looking for a leader, in searching for inspiration, we are willing to overlook others in order to grab at our little sliver of hope or progress. Really because we are often so blind to others around us, and by instinct, we are self absorbed, sometimes the uplifting of others just doesn’t matter right now. This is why the feminist movement pays no heed to color. This is why West Indians often wish to disassociate themselves with being black. And certainly, this is why even freaking GANDHI sort of gave the proverbial middle finger to the oppressed around him. It is this mix of self absorption, desperation, and the notion that we have allll the time in the world, that we as humans feel that we need to do for self first and come back for everybody else, or hope that they’ll find their way….eventually.
But it does not work that way. Our time here is not endless, our opportunities to unite and connect and elevate and get up together are limited, and are certainly dwindling as we speak. We need to take the lessons we have learned from King and Gandhi, both good and evil, and make more of the space that we are in, that we share, and most importantly, that we pass on- together.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 8:25 pm ¶
Sobia wrote:
@RS:
“I don’t really think its true that he wanted muslims to remain as an ‘oppressed’ minority. He had his faults but he was not anti-muslim.”
One doesn’t need to be anti anything to not care about certain issues. I’m not saying Gandhi hated Muslims or was anti-Muslim. What I am saying is that he didn’t really take Muslim concerns into account or seriously. I think the problem many have with him is that he didn’t recognize the added oppression Muslims faced at the hands of the Hindu majority – one that Muslims were very nervous about in an independent India. Gandhi didn’t do much to allay the fears of Muslims leaving the impression that Gandhi was fighting for the Hindus of India only.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 10:01 pm ¶
Montclair Mommy wrote:
I love Tami’s point that it DOESN’T MATTER what Gandhi and MLK thought about Black people or civil rights for same sex families. They are not perfect, nor should they be. And there is no reason to believe or not believe something simply because they did or did not feel believe it. Obviously, it would affect how you feel about them, personally, but to use their prejudices as an excuse for your own personal prejudices (as did Bernice) is very divisive and…frankly, very sad.
Instead of idealizing the past and the heroes of the civil rights movements around the world, we should be focusing on the big picture. That is: there is still so far to go before the battle for equality is won for people of color, LBGTQ families, economically disadvantaged individuals, the mentally ill, those that are differently abled, etc. (it almost seems an impossibility). We need to learn from the lessons of the past movements and take some inspiration from our heroes/heroines, but we must not stop our progress forward morally as we gain greater understanding of oppression in all of its forms.
Posted 03 Nov 2009 at 10:55 pm ¶
RS wrote:
@Sobia
I don’t think you could say that Gandhi was indifferent to muslims. He was deeply committed to a united india for both hindus and muslims and did all he could to reduce the communal violence that was unleashed at Partition.
In fact he even went on a Fast to the death to force the Indian govt to release all the funds that were due to Pakistan from British India in Jan 1948. At this time India and Pakistan were actually at war and he faced a lot of opposition for this move. He had a trip scheduled to Pakistan in Feb of that year, and he intended to do all in his power to try and resolve the situation that had already developed between both countries . He was assasinated before he could make his journey.
It’s also important to remember that in British India, muslim’s weren’t under ‘hindu oppression’ . In fact they had been the ruling class in much of northern india until the mid 19th century and still formed a sizeable chunk of the landed gentry in many areas.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:20 am ¶
msfour wrote:
Thanks, Tami. This reminds me of Stokely Carmichael’s famous (true?) 1964 quote, “The only position for women in SNCC is prone.” And of course the early American women’s movement (and including modern feminism) had a long and terrible history of racism.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:38 am ¶
SG wrote:
@Roy
you need to sit yourself down and read some legitimate historical sources. firstly, jinnah’s vision for pakistan was not as a theologically Islamic state, but a nation which would comprise mostly Muslims. he had no delusions or resurrecting the Mughal Empire; he wanted to create a political body in which Muslims would not be persecuted for their minority status. Secondly, the vision of the Mughal empire you have is a based on the revisionist propaganda of extremist hindu groups. some Mughal emperors were intolerant and made efforts to convert hindus, while others were incredibly tolerant (such as Akbar) and actively encouraged inter-religious intellectual dialogue. if you “find it hard to believe” some of Gandhi’s politics it is probably because all of your knowledge of South Asian history seems to be second hand. maybe you should start by reading some his works, such as Hind Swaraj.
also in general, it is incredibly disruptive to call anyone who disagrees with hero worship of Gandhi a purveyor of British propaganda. he is still a highly disputed figure today in India and within desi communities around the world. even during his lifetime anti-colonialists on the subcontinent had mixed views concerning his effect on the identity of resistance, in particular because of some of his more obscure spiritual practices.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:47 am ¶
Tami wrote:
“It is this mix of self absorption, desperation, and the notion that we have allll the time in the world, that we as humans feel that we need to do for self first and come back for everybody else, or hope that they’ll find their way….eventually.
But it does not work that way. Our time here is not endless, our opportunities to unite and connect and elevate and get up together are limited, and are certainly dwindling as we speak. We need to take the lessons we have learned from King and Gandhi, both good and evil, and make more of the space that we are in, that we share, and most importantly, that we pass on- together.”
THIS. You said beautifully and briefly what it took me a whole post to say.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:47 am ¶
raorao wrote:
Serious issues require serious research, and you do yourself a disservice by citing wikipedia and wikipedia only for this post. Both events you cite are way more complicated than any four paragraph explanation can summarize — I’m not trying to say that Gandhi was in the right, but that this is much more morally ambiguous than you allude to.
With regards to his comments about the native population in South Africa — they aren’t excusable, even accounting for his youth and upbringing, but I think its hard for us to question the tactical decisions of an activist working. The transvaal government was attempting to strip indians of the right to vote, and Gandhi was attempting to work within the framework of the system to stop them. He had to find common ground with his enemy to do so, and unfortunately one way he and the Congress did so was by endorsing discrimination against black africans. Its not right, but I’m not ready to denounce Gandhi for making that decision as a means to defending suffrage.
And I don’t really understand your point about the Zulu war — is it that gandhi (and indians) were complicit? I can’t bring myself to disagree with his desire to help care for wounded soldiers. No matter what war is being fought, that is always a moral decision. Indeed, in his biography, he specifically cites his time with the Army as a personal achievement, and one that he would proudly repeat (That he glosses over his controversial writings about “Kaffirs” is I think also telling, in that he was ashamed of his former beliefs in the inferiority of the black race and in the superiority of the british).
To alleviate pain is moral, unquestionably. To fight for suffrage is also a moral good. Neither justifies the advocacy of racism, but to call gandhi a racist and somehow a tool of the oppressor I think is overly simplistic.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 11:59 am ¶
Red wrote:
So wait…your source is Wikipedia? Seriously?
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 12:05 pm ¶
Orville wrote:
I think all Tami is saying was Gandhi was HUMAN. Everyone has prejudices and so did MLK and Gandhi. Gandhi and MLK are NOT GODS even though people think they are. I think Tami’s piece was well written and very informative.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:47 pm ¶
Teng wrote:
Yeah, it’s hard to take this seriously. The entire basis for this blog is that Tami read something someone wrote on Wikipedia. I don’t know if this is a common way to do research on Racialicious, but it should embarass its editors as well as its audience.
Mod Note – Actually it doesn’t. As both the writer and other commenters have pointed out, the sources referenced are not always readily available, and not all are accessible on the internet, the way Wikipedia is. We, as an internet blog, aren’t exactly in a position to go around turning up our noses at other sources. Wikipedia is certainly fallible, and we did host a conversation or two about how it can be harnessed for anti-racist purposes (and how it has been harnessed for racist purposes). But it is also a quick way to explain something to people who are unfamiliar, in clear and direct language.
Now, do you have anything of substance to say about this article? – LDP
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 7:57 pm ¶
April wrote:
I think a lot of people here are missing the very salient point of this post. Yes, Tami cited Wikipedia–probably not the most credible source–but as others have pointed out, Gandhi’s early attitudes toward black South Africans are well-documented elsewhere. If you’re in doubt, go research it.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 8:46 pm ¶
daniel.waweru wrote:
It’s odd you should say that these things are inexcusable, and then attempt to excuse them. In any case you haven’t succeeded: you’ve shown no serious evidence that these things were merely tactical,. while there’s a bunch of evidence that his opinions on the inferiority of black Africans was heartfelt – the really interesting evidence comes from the issues of Indian Opinion, when Gandhi says some very unpleasant things, while repeatedly affirming his support for segregation.
Given the importance he attached to truth, it’s hard to reconcile his conduct in South Africa with his philosophy: as Manfred Steger’s review of a book about Gandhi’s racism mentions, Gandhi went to some trouble to hide the racist opinions he had held in South Africa.
Posted 04 Nov 2009 at 9:23 pm ¶
g531 wrote:
Thank you for this post. The insight and perspective you provide is critically important to better engaging with the way that overlapping inequalities are pitted against each other. Especially considering the ways in which those who engage primarily with one (because of other unmarked privileges) are frustrated with the presence of said inequality in the ‘other’ oppressed community that ‘ignores’ theirs.
Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 9:46 am ¶
9jah wrote:
That’s pretty funny – Gandhi might have been a racist (and possessed some ethnic and religious bigotry).
I don’t know that the comparison to MLK is fair since MLK (for all his rumored philandering) has not been cited as being homophobic or sexist to my knowledge. But i am open to correction.
And nothing pisses me off more than how people extend white people’s (and apparently Gandhi’s) reasoning in an era to the general reasoning of that era. There was an entire RACE of people who I bet thought otherwise regarding Gandhi’s assumed Indian superiority and whatnot. It is IMO arrogant and tone deaf to simply act like they didn’t exist or have opinions regarding the cruel treatment against them. This is the same fail argument people use when discussing slavery.
I guess we are pretty much left with Mother Theresa as the only true conscious hero one can aspire to. Any dirt on her? I’m keeping my fingers crossed.
Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 2:54 pm ¶
9jah wrote:
Forgot to mention that I co-sign completely with Luise #23 – in saying that Gandhi might have been a racist at some point, I can reconcile that phase of his life with his later image since people do change and should be credited for that. Assuming he actually did evolve.
@ raorao #37 – your argument, even if proving a young Gandhi was not a stone cold racist, still paints a clear picture of an opportunist and one willing to step on the back of others to acheive his own uplift. A more heroic stance would have been to fight for both his welfare and that of others advancing the idea that fair and equal treatment are the right of all people and let the chips fall where they may. MLK voiced opposition to the Vietnam war even though showing support would have undoubtedly gained him favors from the status quo. Bottom line is a young Gandhi might at best have been a hard-charging, self-interested hero for his people but nothing more.
Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶
curlyscales wrote:
Okay. I think I understand the hoopla surrounding this article becuase I kind of learned these interesting fact about Gandhi a while back. It took me by surprise but it required me to relax my idol worshipping routine and just look at the man.
When I was growing up, I loved Eddie Murphy. And I laughed very heartily at jokes that demeaned gays, Asians, women and the list goes on. Today, I can’t. Enough said.
I thought that every person who commited a crime deserved no remorse or mercy, and then I grew up and worked for the Osborne Society. Enough said.
All in all, I loved the article. It was eye-opening and refreshing like, you know, real people stuff.
There is an empowering message here, hopefully we will get it in time.
Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 4:38 pm ¶
curlyscales wrote:
Please excuse my misspellings and poor grammar usage.
Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 4:58 pm ¶
Harold M. Clemens wrote:
big up the author for this one! good read.
Posted 05 Nov 2009 at 10:31 pm ¶
John wrote:
Great piece. You did fail to mention (and I think it would solidify your arguments) what a virulent homophobe Gandhi was. From the 1920s to the 1940s Gandhi led a campaign to erase all positive references to transgenderism and same-sex desire in Indian culture. For example, by having lesbian and homoerotic representations carved on Hindu temples destroyed.
Posted 06 Nov 2009 at 4:25 pm ¶
Jessica wrote:
Ghandi used to beat his wife. There is no recovering from that. Not a fan of him at all. Same goes for Mother Theresa, I don’t care for her at all.
Posted 07 Nov 2009 at 9:45 pm ¶
Julia wrote:
I don’t know if it is a sense of entitlement (I’ve been discriminated against and therefore I have the right to pass it on) or if it’s trying to position oneself a little higher in the racial caste system but I’m constantly amazed at the way that one minority group will turn on another. My Pakistani neighbors don’t like my black neighbors, my black neighbors don’t like hispanics, my Mexican neighbors don’t like Guatemalans, it just keeps going on.
“How much stronger would all of the equality movements be if we were working together to cement the idea that EVERYONE, regardless of gender, race, sexuality, ability, etc., deserved basic human rights and respect?”
Love that question. And I’d love to see it answered.
Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶
m. wrote:
This is a great post, thanks.
To those criticizing Tami for utilizing Wikipedia: many people follow links to other sources FROM Wikipedia (hence, citations), and go from there. Yes, Wikipedia is bottom of the barrel for *in-depth* research, but it is also where a lot of people begin in their quest for knowledge due to it being one of the most accessible sources on the web.
Also, I cannot believe some of these comments. Specifically, this:
“Another point entirely, LGBTQ activists need to stop acting surprised when Black/Latino/Asian folks speak out against gay rights.”
Gee, Luis, did it ever occur to you that gay rights are also QPOC rights? Or does ‘gay’ automatically bring to mind a white person?
“This struggle isn’t Gay Rights vs. White Straight Men.”
Thanks for the clarification?
“Just as we need to do a better job of recognizing LGBTQ folks of color, we also need to recognize that they’re fighting battles in their own communities.”
Ah, yes; the old reminder that I don’t belong to *anyone else’s* communities, that people like myself always need to work extra hard to build our own wherever we are. Sounds to me like you aren’t recognizing much yourself (or at least not QPOC that express dissent), or just find it too taxing to care about more than just “Black/Asian/Latino folks” (that are homo/transphobic and straight).
“This is a battle of mindsets that has multiple fronts. Stop wasting energy being outraged that some old Civil Rights-era leaders (or their children) aren’t coming to your defense and make your case to everyone who is resistant to your movement.”
I actually don’t care about any old civil rights leaders or even the more recent, “prominent” (see: straight, Black/Asian/Latino) leaders in the spotlight; the majority of the leaders I have any respect for are Indigenous, anyway. Sorry. But I’ll remember to shut up and take it when “Black/Asian/Latino folks” (all of whom are straight by default, QPOC don’t have races or ethnicities) open their ignorant mouths about the rights of “others”, since Native people (queer or straight) are not wanted, included or acknowledged in any LGBTQ *OR* POC communities. (I may as well, I’ve taken quite a bit of their racist abuse, as well.) Anyway, now that I know it’s okay to express schadenfreude and/or remain oblivious to those more marginalized (’Civil Rights, But Just For Me’, right?), those who may or may not have their rights taken away…I’ll stop getting outraged.
Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 10:13 pm ¶
Romulan-Klingon Mix wrote:
I am an Indian and the story about Gandhi in South Africa is true. Deconstructed, he was part saint, part opportunistic lawyer (educated in England) who wanted to rise up from the oppressed colonial to the ruling hierarchy. His ego and self-righteousness were his weakness. I would rate MLK higher than him.
In South Africa, he saw his chance and did what he had to – to get Indians better status at the expense of natives. This, in turn got him prominence in India and he used that to become a leader of the independence movement.
He did support the Dalits (untouchables) , but he only did so to get their support for the independence movement. (see Poona pact comments earlier). He squeezed out many other leaders who had equal, if not better ideas for an independent India (including Vallabhbhai Patel and Netaji Subash Chandra Bose).
He started the the Quit India in 1942 during WWII movement (over the objections of many other independence leaders). In fact, from 1942 to his assassination until 1948, he used his influence/prominence to hijack issues (e.g. he would fast unto death on every issue unless he had his way).
He was assassinated because , during Partition, he wanted to give Pakistan a lot more land and resources than most Indians were comfortable. He wanted to do this so that he would be respected as a saint and a man of principles, especially by the British, who knew how to use him and stoke his ego.
The British figured him out early and they tolerated and even backed him, covertly and openly, because he was someone they deemed more beneficial to their long-term interests – basically he was a benevolent colonial who had accepted, in some form, a watered-down system of racial and social superiority
Jawaharlal Nehru was another guy who had the same race/caste superiority make-up thanks to a English education and the British encouraged/adopted him. (Look up ‘Nehru Mountbatten’ in google).
In fact, Nehru’s grandson’s Italian(!) wife and great grandson and his Colombian(!) girlfriend are ruling India now.
Colonialism didn’t go, it just got handed over to a local or a native ’sahib.’ Same thing in South Africa now – most of the money and the influence is still with the European settlers. And De Beers still owns the mines.
Posted 08 Nov 2009 at 11:30 pm ¶
Ron wrote:
@Romulan-Klingon Mix
Thanks for the breakdown.
Posted 09 Nov 2009 at 12:05 am ¶