"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, always. --Mahatma Gandhi

But Gandhi had more patience than most people. As we know, 12 years of power can be enough for some tyrants to destroy nearly 20 million people. That's 12 years too long. And today one tyrant with the kind of weapon system available to him or her could effectively destroy the world as we know it in a matter of days.

Sorry to be so gloomy, but I find it hard to understand passive resistance when all it amounts to is waiting until the problem goes away!

CK, I think you may have focussed so hard on the first word of the phrase that you haven't given full weight to the second: resistance of the kind Gandhi created was a completely unstoppable force for good.

I think you may have focussed so hard on the first word of the phrase that you haven't given full weight to the second

No, Mav, I don't really think I did. My opinion of Gandhi is probably not that of the masses.

With all due respect, Gandhi was wrong. Right off the bat, one could point to Genghis Khan, who killed uncounted people and made himself the scourge of the known world in his time, and kept on doing it for decades until he died in his bed. Unless that's what Gandhi meant by "falling", which doesn't present much of an argument. And I have no doubt that througout history there have been innumerable cases of local Attilas, Hitlers, etc. whom we don't know about because they occupied a stage too small to capture any place in history books.

Gandhi was a truly great and visionary man, but I have to feel that what he accomplished could probably not have been done, even by him, in different circumstances and in different times. He went up against the power of the Raj, not an inherently bloodthirsty regime. Genghis, or Attila, or any of that ilk would have had him impaled in short order.

re: He went up against the power of the Raj,

he succeeded with the Raj, but he started in South Africa.

I don't want to get drawn into any argument because in this present world situation stating your point of veiw is just letting the steam out of your mouth (meaning it does not lead to anything), but I could not let this go.

All I want to say is this is a world that is getting more fractured. Hatred is increasing. (Believe me from the part of the world I come from, I know how much). I think in the present situation you have keep a control on your mouth. CapK and ByB you're entitled to your opinions that picking up a gun is doing the active thing, that Gandhi was "wrong" and in the present situation "would have had him impaled in short order."

I don't need to read that!

Avy, I know you mean well and have the most noble motives and sentiments, but your last post is an example of how disagreements arise and get blown out of all proportion among people who ought to be able to get along.

You impute to CapK and me opinions that we did not express (that picking up a gun is the active thing) and which, at least so far as I am concerned (CapK can speak for himself) are not my opinions. Further, you imply that I said I would have had Gandhi impaled, when it is perfectly clear that I said that Genghiz Khan or Attila would have done so. Indeed, I believe I expressed my admiration for Gandhi, and I do admire him -- as a thinker and philosopher, but not as a reliable guide for dealing with a situation such as the one we find ourselves in.

This entire discussion has been informative, educational, interesting and even moving. However, it now appears to me that it can no longer be carried on in the spirit to which we are accustomed here. Rather than mar the spirit which makes us a big family, and which I enjoy so much, I shall make no further contributions to this or related threads; I shall not even read them, lest some outrageous or misguided statement should tempt me to break this resolution. But to those of you who carry on, this plea: at least pay attention to what others are saying and don't twist their words -- that's the least you owe everyone.

Avy, I don't know how you got that from CapK's or BobY posts. Neither one of them were advocating picking up a gun and neither one of them said they would have Gandhi impaled.

a) Cap simply said that in today's society so many people have access to objects of mass destruction that to wait 12 years, like Gandhi did, could mean the death of millions of people. He was NOT saying using guns is a good thing. He was nowhere near saying that.

b) BYB said that if Gandhi had been up against a Genghis Khan or Attila the Hun, instead of a peaceful Raj, he would have been impaled on the spot. He DOES NOT say that he would impale him. He is saying that Gandhi’s method of dealing would not have worked everywhere.

I’m sorry if this sounds harsh but seriously Avy, you were really rude the these two guys and for no reason at all.

Avy, you were really rude the these two guys and for no reason at all.

bel, you're unfair to Avy. He was advocating that we posters adopt a calmer tone and refrain from incendiary terms like "impaled".

I would have advocated the same way, and I hope I would have done so with more restraint, but I too was disturbed by the words to which Avy replied. And since he lives in India, I can understand why he would be particularly distressed by the negative references to Gandhi. Avy was reacting to provocation (accidental provocation, I trust), not "for no reason at all".

AVY WRITES: CapK and ByB you're entitled to your opinions that picking up a gun is doing the active thing, that Gandhi was "wrong" and in the present situation "would have had him impaled in short order." (emphasis mine)

I have to disagree with you K. Avy was telling Cap & BYB off because he thought they were voicing the opinion that the use of guns is o.k. (for Cap) and that BYB would have had Gandhi impaled. BUT this was not what they said at all.

AVY WRITES: I think in the present situation you have keep a control on your mouth.

Telling somebody to shut up is an incendiary remark wouldn't you say?
The term 'impaled' in the way Byb used it was correct. It was one of the ways Attila or Genghis would have used to get rid of an opponent. That is what he was trying to say. That if Gandhi had been faced with one of those two his peaceful method would have failed because they would have dispatched him thusly.

Aye, I do understand that Avy is from India and that Gandhi is a cultural icon but admonishing someone so harshly for something they did not say is wrong.

And K, if you are troubled or disagree with a comment made by Cap or Byb (or anyone for that matter) isn't it better to debate the point than to tell them to keep their mouth under control.

It would have made so much more sense, and been much more civil if Avy had disputed their theories, or brought forth reasons why he considered the guys to be incorrect. Just like you just did with me. I am not hurt or insulted by your comments because I know we are talking it out.

It is only by discussion that things can be resolved.

bel says, K, if you are troubled or disagree with a comment made by Cap or Byb ... isn't it better to debate the point than to tell them to keep their mouth under control? (emph. added)

bel, please note that I used no such phrase. Nor did support Avy's use of that phrase: quite the contrary, I took care to indicate calmly that IMHO, Avy's words were excessive.(I said, "I hope I would have [written] with more restraint" than Avy did.)

but I also asserted, with specific support, that it was excessive and unfair overkill to charge Avy with acting "for no reason at all". Others had (doubtless without intent) made provocative remarks: the image of his country's honored hero being impaled.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To illustrate with a humorous story, which unfortunately is probably apocryphal:
At a state dinner held in the French court a few years after the American Revolution, the British ambassador rose and offered his toast to those former British colonies. Said he, "To George Washington, dead or alive." Thereupon Benjamin Franklin rose and announced his own toast, "To the Crown Prince, drunk or sober." "Sir," said the Brit angrily, "that is an insult!" "No insult, sir," said Franklin, "merely a reply to one."
Avy, unlike Franklin, was IMHO excessive. But like Franklin, he cannot be adjudged without considering the words to which he was replying.

I am duplicating here part of a post I just made in another thread. Something I have never done before, but I'm doing it now to emphasize that I am dead serious about this.
As my sweet insel. said, nerves are frayed by what has happened, and is happening. Its enormity has led us first, to be so thankful that our two NYC members are safe, then into further discussion of events, and then on over into politics and sure enough, that has led to discord (surprise, surprise). Now, on the one hand, it has been a valuable education to me to learn how people in other parts of the world think, but despite my valuing that, the cost has now become too high for me.

tsuwm, I don't know whether or not you come to this board as a refuge. I do, and some others (thank you) have posted that they have. I would very much like to see it go back to being that. The defamatory ambush on my beloved friend came as such a shock, that I don't feel that I can tolerate any more of the public "did too/did not" types of posts that have been appearing: MY nerves are too frayed. So if anyone feels that they need to clarify/defend their position, I would very much appreciate it if you carried that on with whoever the appropriate party is in private.
This is really starting to get to me, you-all.

I...I...so much has happened here, in I & A
I mean, and so much of it is so important, I really don't feel that I can actually suggest that anything further on The Topic be switched over to Miscellany, but...there is at least one thread on it there already, and...especially if folks would take care to mark their posts' subject titles, that would allow me and any others who wish, to avoid reading what we would prefer not to. If you have managed to wade through this ramble, I thank you for your patience.

In line with some of this, I once heard an, albeit brief, analysis of the practice of ahimsa, or non-violence, according to which the practice could only be successful in the face of a morally developed opponent. "Existentially," I doubt this is true, but as a matter of immediate political activism, it would seem the the efficacy of ahimsa is that it faces the opponent with their own moral repugnance at the attrocity of their actions. Corollary to this, it would probably be prudent to consider what it is, exactly, that is being doubted when the suggestion is made, in essence, that Muslim extremists are not suitable targets of non-violent resistance. That they lack moral fiber is a proposition without foundation. Rather, I believe, the ineffectiveness would have to do with the nature of the conflict: it's geo-political situation in a sort of trans-national virtual space, as well as in the more significant co-marginalization of religious and market fundamentalism and the parallel sacred and secular forms of state. Where the global community has been so profoundly divided, the claim of the moral is unlikely to be seen as universally similar and its reflection is unlikely to be noticed by the perpetrator. But this is a two way cul-de-sac. Ahimsa, at this juncture, will, above all, require self-reflection.

Dear All
This is not what I intended at all. I didn't want this to happen. Yes Gandhi is highly revered in the India and I was very angry to read comments about him. (I think this is a cross cultural board and people have to be just a little bit careful with their words)
BUT yes! You are absolutely right Belm by that very same reasoning I should have not spoken as I did.
Jackie, I am sorry for making the board worse. I don't like it this way either. It was not my intention. I was angry and I should have probably gone and flung a chair out of the window instead of writing.
BYB I am sorry if I misunderstood - but please remember while writing keep in mind there are people like me around reading and misunderstanding.
CapK - thank you for your silence. But my apology to you too.
Avy

I am just an oppressed woman from the east. Perhaps that is the explanation for the steam coming out of my ears.

Sweet Avy, I love you.

belMarduk>>>>>
It is only by discussion that things can be resolved.

belM, I hope you will stay steadfast in your advocacy of open discussion.

These are not normal times.
We are all nerves and afraying. We are frustrated. We are at the heights of our passions (that is why some are not as meticulous in their pronouncements as they usually are.) There are many issues that as many people as possible have to be enlightened about.
Those who are articulate, those who can elucidate, those who can clarify, those who have accumulated a wealth of knowledge and information pertinent to these times--this is not the time to withdraw. The more truths are sown, the better for everyone.
Those who can enlighten must, with every chance, continue to do so.

Everyone needs to vent. It is cathartic. But we have to do the venting with civility and respect.
Remember we are all very fragile at this time and we easily hurt.
There is enough hurt already, we need no more.
I love everyone of you.

That monster post is dead. "Ding dong, the wicked post is dead"