People love to categorize other people.
We understand that we are complex, but other people?
Other people are simple.
When it comes to morality, someone is either good or evil, there is no in between.
So when we come across someone who is in that moral gray area, we discard, add on, or exaggerate
their story in order to fit them into whatever box we want.
A few weeks ago I talked about a person who has been fictionalized into the evil box,
so now let’s go in the opposite direction and see if we can get 1.3 billion dislikes
by going after Gandhi.
Mahatma Gandhi, whose real first name is Mohandas, is generally seen as a good person.
He’s almost a saint really, and is famous for preaching non-violence.
Unless you play against him in Civ, in which case he’s rather…
Nuclear launch detected.
…nuclear inclined.
But Gandhi’s story really starts in South Africa, a country you think about so little,
I don’t even have to point it out on this map because you already know where it is.
If you don’t know, South Africa has somewhat of a negative reputation.
Now, I know many of you can’t tell the difference between my accent and a South African accent,
here’s the difference.
Picture my accent, but I’m punching a black person.
What I’m trying to say is South Africans are horrible people.
Gandhi came to South Africa to work for a shipping company as a corporate lawyer.
Which… let’s not hold that against him.
But here is where people often say that Gandhi fought for racial equality, and here is where
things start to get a little messy.
Yes, he did fight for racial equality… if you’re an Indian.
When Gandhi arrived, segregation was the norm, just like in the United States.
There were white people and coloured people… except spelled with a U. Gandhi didn’t like
that, and not because there was segregation at all, but because Indian people were classified
as colored.
Gandhi was not especially fond of black people, who he called this… which is a word that’s
so bad that in 1976 South Africa made the use of this word criminally punishable, so
I’m definitely not going to say it….
Ahh!
No get it off!
Geez- Just like in America when they want to say the naughty word without actually saying
the naughty word, they say “K-Word.”
So that’s what I’m going to say from now on.
There, our garments were stamped with the letter “N”, which meant that we were being
classed with the Natives…
Oh yeah, unlike in America there isn’t a “go back to Africa” mentality when it
comes to racism in South Africa for what I hope are obvious reasons.
So when they say natives, they mean black people.
And when they say Indians, they mean Indians, not Indians.
You’ll catch on don’t worry.
Indians sentenced to hard labour are in fact kept with the Kaffirs…
Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilised—the convicts even more so.
They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.
They are intellectually backward.
They are unlettered and have no arts.
Gandhi spoke modern English, so unlike Columbus, there is no room for translative interpretation.
There is no question as to what he might have meant by that.
Given his rather negative view of black people, he especially didn’t like that in segregated
society, Indians were lumped in with Natives.
Ours is one continual struggle against a degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the Europeans,
who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and
whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then,
pass his life in indolence and nakedness.
The British rulers take us to be so lowly and ignorant that they assume that, like the
Kaffirs who can be pleased with toys and pins, we can also be fobbed off with trinkets.
Geez Gandhi, what the f…
It’s kind of terrifying that people like Martin Luther King and Richard Spencer could
both be accurately quoting Gandhi… just let that sink in for a moment.
It’s almost like reading a KKK manifesto.
According to Gandhi’s own grandson, he undoubtedly was “at times ignorant and prejudiced about
South African’s blacks” which… is putting it rather lightly really.
But I’m about to forgive you so hard right now.
I’m passively resisting the fact that you suck.
Yeah there’s no way that hug would have happened.
Gandhi wasn’t fighting to abolish racial segregation, he was fighting to move Indians
from the colored category to the White category.
And his justification for that move is… Gandhi believes in what is called the Aryan
Brotherhood.
Ugh!
I know, I know but it’s not that Aryan Brotherhood, it’s the idea that Europeans and Indians
both descend from the same racial group.
We beg to point out that both the Anglo-Saxon and the Indian races belong to the same stock…
both the races have sprung from the same Aryan stock, or rather the Indo-European as many
call it.
We have no wish whatever to thrust ourselves as members of a brother nation on a nation
that would be unwilling to receive us as such, but we may be pardoned if we state the real
facts.
So putting that into context, according to Ashwin Desai, he was “keen to join whites
as a junior partner in the subjugation of Africans”
Gandhi’s vision of segregation in South Africa would have included two groups: Whites
and Indians… and everyone else.
The South African government obviously didn’t go for that, but when Apartheid officially
began in 1950, they struck a compromise with four groups.
Whites, Indians, Blacks, and Coloreds, spelled with a U.
I don’t know if Gandhi’s way would have been better or worse… but probably not better
really.
The point here is that while people say that Gandhi fought for racial equality, he didn’t
really.
He fought for Indian racial equality.
He was still all about that whites being better than blacks thing.
Oh so what, are you saying we should take down all of the Gandhi statues because he
was a racist?
Well, I’m not saying that but uh…
Yes, there is a movement in South Africa, Ghana, and a few other African countries to
take down his statues because of his racist views.
Now you might be saying “Well, that was all when he was younger, you know, people
change as they age.”
Right that’s why the stereotype is that old people are less racist.
But hold that thought, we’ll get back to it in a moment.
What Gandhi is perhaps most famous for is…
Hi, I’m Gandhi and if Britain doesn’t get the hell out of India I’m going to starve
myself to death in public.
Wow that worked?
Are you seriously going to try and tell us that that’s not how it happened?
So Gandhi moved back to India in 1915 and almost immediately started the independence
movement.
Right, which was non-violent.
I’m starting to think that your only purpose in this script is to set up my next argument.
*Look at camera* His first strategy for this was to help recruit Indians into the British
Army during World War 1, which isn’t really all that non-violent when you think about
it, hoping that Britain would repay their kindness by giving up the jewel in the crown.
When that obviously didn’t work, he sought the cooperation of Indian Muslims who were
a bit salty over the fact that the British Empire just defeated the Ottoman Empire.
And that’s when the movement started to pick up steam.
Gandhi did not preach non-violence, he preached non-cooperation, like work and hunger strikes.
He would prefer that that non-cooperation be non-violent, but he acknowledged that:
Non-co-operation was violent as it often, if not invariably, is…
Non-co-operation [is], at best partially non-violent, at its worst bare-faced violence.
So again, while he preferred non-cooperation to be non-violent, he acknowledged the presence
of violence, and at times, the necessity of violence.
I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise
violence.
This is just good, middle of the road advice, most anyone would say that.
And that’s the point, most anyone would say that.
Not someone who’s been elevated to the level of a saint.
Gandhi never claimed to be a saint.
He said that he had all the weaknesses of an ordinary person and one of those weaknesses
was sexual.
Whoa what?
Yeah this gets rather juicy later… and that’s going to be a really regrettable pun later
too.
Having enlisted the help of the Indian All-Muslim League started to gain steam, so the British
tried to keep India in the fold by appealing to the lowest in society and giving them equal
voting rights.
I fought the caste system but you still cannot touch this.
Gandhi did not fight against the caste system.
Which, if you’re an American, you were probably taught no longer exists for some reason.
It does, it very much does.
Before you ask, Gandhi belonged to this caste, the merchants.
And you may notice that there’s a caste missing, probably the only one you can name
if you’re an American.
The Untouchables.
Because they weren’t a caste, they existed outside of the caste system like the factionless
in Divergent.
In 1932, the British Raj introduced the Communal Award, which gave separate but equal voting
rights to the “depressed classes” including the untouchables.
Gandhi was against this and fasted for 9 days in protest which made the British back down
from the idea.
Many of Gandhi’s contemporaries and adversaries, most notably this guy, accused him of wanting
to retain the caste system because of this.
Gandhi did want to retain the caste system.
He thought it was important to the core beliefs of Hinduism, but, he wanted people to think
about it differently.
Instead of tiers on a pyramid, they were separate but equal groups.
What is it with this separate but equal thing?
He didn’t believe that the castes existed because of spiritual impurity or inferiority
and said that the Vedic texts on which the system is based never mentions that.
Which is true, it doesn’t.
He began calling the Untouchables this and wanted them to be a fifth, separate but equal
caste.
Can I please come up with a different phrase to describe this idea?
I wish I could, but that’s literally what he wanted.
Today in India, at least on paper, that’s how it’s supposed to be, so put one in the
win column for Gandhi, I guess.
But in practice, old habits die hard, and they actually have to have affirmative action
and hate-crime legislation in place to protect the now-known-as-this, formerly known as the
untouchables.
Gandhi didn’t like any political separation by caste, class, or religion.
Which caused problems with his new allies, the Muslims, because as the independence movement
looked like it was going to win, the Indian Muslims began advocating for the creation
of two separate but- argh!
Let’s call it a two state solution.
Ugh, yeah, because that’s better.
The Indian All-Muslim League wanted there to be a Muslim India and a Hindu India.
Gandhi was against this idea, wanting there to be one, united India where everyone lived
in harmony.
Funny enough, he was also against a two-state solution in the other part of the world where
that was an issue and still is.
Gandhi’s views on Israel changed over time with the changing political climate in India.
Shocking I know, it’s almost like he was a politician or a lawyer.
At first, while he was trying to gain the support of Muslims in India for independence,
he said: The Jews should disclaim any intention of
realizing their aspiration…
No exception can possibly be taken to the natural desire of the Jews to find a home
in Palestine.
But they must wait for its fulfillment till Arab opinion is ripe for it.
But once it was clear that the Muslims were arguing for a separate Indian state, his tone
changed, saying: If the Arabs have a claim to Palestine, the
Jews have a prior claim.
Gandhi was not fond of Muslims, back in the day we might call this racism, but now we
would call it Islamaphobia.
Gandhi thought that Muslims were too intolerant of criticism and instead should welcome criticism
of the Quran and their practices.
But he was particularly afraid of Islam’s “quickness to violence.”
Those are Gandhi’s words, not mine – I feel weirdly compelled to reiterate that,
because again, it’s really concerning that white supremacists and preachers of tolerance
can both be quoting Gandhi.
And keep in mind, this is pre-9/11 and even pre-suicide bombing.
Late into the independence movement, Gandhi wrote a letter saying:
We both may be killed by the Muslims and must put our purity to the ultimate test, so that
we know that we are offering the purest of sacrifices, and we should now both start sleeping
naked.
I’m sorry what was that?
Alright, into the muck we go… Gandhi has some odd views on sex?
He believed that there was magical power in… what he called vital fluid…
I did not think I was going to be this uncomfortable talking about this.
It’s actually a common belief in Hinduism that “Veerya” gives you cosmic strength,
which is why that tantric stuff exists.
One who conserves his vital fluid acquires unfailing power.
As you probably know, Gandhi took a vow of celibacy, not because of some weird purity,
he was married and had children, but because he wanted to build up his power by preserving
his vital fluid.
This is so ridiculous.
It wasn’t enough for Gandhi to just abstain from sex.
He had to tempt himself and resist that temptation.
How did he test himself in that regard?
By sleeping with naked women… one of whom was his 17 year old grandniece, Manu.
And by sleeping I actually do mean sleeping, according to a few of these women, no physical
contact occurred and it was even described as if they were sleeping with their aging
mother.
This reminds me of someone else who did something similar, who we also weirdly forgave… Gandhi
was 77 years old when he performed these experiments and it’s important to note that these “experiments”
were not part of the traditional “brahmacharya” celibacy oath.
He in fact just made them up as he went along.
He specifically did this because If I can master this [sexual impulse], I can still
beat Jinnah.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the leader of the All-Muslim League in India and eventual founder
of Pakistan.
I knew Gandhi, he was a prick.
He kept saying who’s your diaper daddy, who’s your diaper daddy?
He says that as a joke but, this was kind of an open secret.
Many of Gandhi’s subordinates quit in protest of these experiments and in response to some
of his views.
The Prime Minister of one of the states of India described Gandhi as “a most dangerous,
semi-repressed sex maniac” (C.P. Ramaswami) Could you imagine if Gandhi was alive today
and one of his letters got out saying “If I don't let Manu sleep with me, though I regard
it as essential that she should, wouldn't that be a sign of weakness in me?”
We’d probably nearly elect him to Congress – or force him to resign I guess, depending
on his party affiliation.
Gandhi preserved his vital fluid and pushed for independence through World War 2, when
Britain said How about no Gandhi, okay? and they promised that they would allow independence
after the war, because you know, the world was a little occupied at the moment.
Gandhi started the Quit India movement in 1942, at the height of the war, calling for
Indians to “Do or Die” which doesn’t sound all that non-violent.
So he and several members of the Indian Congress were put in jail for the duration of the war,
which left the All-Muslim league in charge.
I don’t know when it’s a good time to ask for independence, but I know when it’s
a bad time.
The British granted independence in 1947, mostly because of the anti-imperialist political
pressure that Gandhi and the United States had helped build, not because “oh not that
one guy is going to starve himself if we don’t.”
But since the All-Muslim League was the majority in Congress for the last few years, the British
partitioned the country into India and Pakistan.
All of his pent up power couldn’t help him defeat the All-Muslim League I guess.
He continued to advocate for a united India until he was assassinated by an Indian in
1948.
And that is when the sanitization and glorification of Gandhi began.
Much like what America did with the founding fathers, India wanted their own Father of
the Nation.
So they discarded the unsavory parts and amplified the good parts.
And just like George Washington and the cherry tree, they also just made up stories about
him to make him look even more good.
This was when the title of Mahatma was added to his name, meaning great soul or saint,
completing what is called the hagiography of Gandhi.
His racism lasted his entire life, first against black people, then against Muslims, he didn’t
really change as he aged.
But a common defense of Gandhi’s racial views is that he lived in a different time.
I don’t agree that grandfather was a racist.
You know, he was living in a different era and different circumstances than we are living
now.
How the “man of his time” argument valid for someone like Gandhi, but not for someone
like Columbus?
Columbus lived 500 years ago, not 60, and didn’t say anything nearly as racially charged
as Gandhi.
Columbus spoke medieval Spanish and his quotes have been twisted and amplified during translation
– Gandhi spoke modern day English.
There is no room for interpretation here.
Columbus was only active in the New World for give or take 15 years.
Yet he is blamed for all sorts of evil that occurred afterwards, including centuries or
disease, war, and oppression.
Gandhi, in essence, helped set up Apartheid in South Africa.
This sign, which separates Coloureds, Natives, and Indians from White people only exists
because of Gandhi’s efforts to make Indians literal second-class citizens.
While leaving native black people third-class I guess.
In India, his efforts towards independence and his non-violent non-cooperation directly
led to the split of India and Pakistan, which has caused several decades of war and a nuclear
standoff.
Well that’s not fair, you can’t blame Gandhi for things that happened after he died.
Why is that defense okay for Gandhi, but not Columbus?
We all know that most people live in the moral gray area.
But we don’t want that to be true, we want heroes and villains to point to as examples.
So for some people, we’ll polish over or discard the ugly parts in order to push them
towards sainthood.
And for others, we will exaggerate or add on parts to push them towards evil.
The arguments which are used in defense of a good person are completely dismissed when
talking about a bad person, and the methods of adding blame to the bad person are not
equally applied to the good person.
Because we want the world to be nice and simple, good and evil.
So the next time someone tells you that Gandhi fought for equality and took a vow of celibacy,
try not to gag, because now, you know better.
There you have it, Columbus and Gandhi, two people whose stories have been fictionalized
in order to cast them as heroes or villains.
Does this change how you view historical figures?
Let me know down in the comments and don’t forget to sanctify that subscribe button.
In the meantime, follow me on facebook and twitter and consider donating to the channel
on Patreon.