I don't get why any man who is a peace loving pacifist sould ever be criticised for it. Would you have kicked out
Ghandi? Would you have laughed at MLK? I guess you only care for the Malcolm Xs of the world?
The problem is that 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' is a phrase many Brits are too arrogant to realise cuts both ways. Stop killing, and funding the killing, of innocent people's families and I think they might be less likely to come over here with a deathwish.
The Tories are in the pockets of business - and one of the biggies is the amrs business. Yet people on this thread think a man of moral conviction is the real danger to world peace?
You are taking people from the past for the good they did without addressing their failings! MLK was a full on churchman and very anti-science as well as being a non supporter of any modern day LGBQT issues.
He plagiarised parts of his speeches and writings from others yet considered them "his property" and protected them as such. Not only that it is fully accepted that he plagiarised all the time to earn his doctorate.
He was a serial adulterer despite being a clergyman
Gandhi had a vast amount of flaws. Again a serial adulterer. He beat his wife. HE called women who used contraception "whores." HE considered women who had been raped
"had lost their value as human beings." He justified "honour killings."
He refused penicillin be given to his wife when she had bronchial pneumonia as it would be "a bankruptcy of my own faith." Not long after he contracted Malaria and 3 weeks later gave in and accepted Quinine to cure him.
More importantly he was racist towards black people, stating many times his opinion that Indians were superior to "Kaffirs." He continually used the term "Kaffir" for Black Africans and supported apartheid. He wanted black people to be segregated from Indians in Africa!! In his own words:
“Your Petitioner has seen the Location intended to be used by the Indians. It would place them, who are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs, in close proximity to the latter.”
“Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals. Each ward contains nearly 50 to 60 of them. They often started rows and fought among themselves. The reader can easily imagine the plight of the poor Indian thrown into such company!”
“Some Indians do have contacts with Kaffir women. I think such contacts are fraught with grave danger. Indians would do well to avoid them altogether.”
While he considered Hitler's actions monstrous and wrote and spoke about wanting the war to end he also wrote in a letter to the British DURING the war
"Hitler is not a bad man" in the same letter as he told Britain to stop fighting and suggesting sending our troops into the war was manslaughter. Saying that the British people should lay down their arms and surrender to the Nazis.
He is not well considered by Jews either for his words about them remaining in Germany and
"offered themselves to the Butcher's knife."
While you can say that both were a force for good in many ways it is not right to forget their failings just as it is not right to only remember Churchill as some Great man for his wartime period while forgetting everything else.
It is all well and good proclaiming people to be pacifists but in Gandhi's case especially he was a racist who promoted martyrdom. Racism is not what I call pacifism and by promoting martyrdom he advocates laying down and letting "dictators" take over.
How can someone talk about non violence but keep those nasty blacks away from superior Indians?
You talk about Corbyn being a pacifist yet the activists that are behind him are pretty violent. A lot of the "anti" groups that get great publicity are violent. There are countless examples through history of people whose words promote peace and harmony yet those words result in violent uprisings instead.
Are we really at the point where we have convinced ourselves that those words were not intended to promote such actions?
I'm all for equality and the message of MLK is a good one but I have no doubt that he (and those who were behind him and writing his speeches with him) were under no illusions that the result of those speeches would be anything other than violent uprisings.
It is not enough to listen to Corbyn's words and take them at literal value when he knows the people behind him and under him would spit in the face of anyone who dared to say they were Tory or would charge into an EDL rally punching and kicking rather than have any notion of pacifism.
Words are cheap. The intent behind the words is the key. Gandhi's words mean nothing when they came from such a horrible mind.
) whereas Timid Theresa changes her mind when the going gets tough.
