I was viewing a photo slide of the degenerate Martin Luther King Jr. showing how he, his wife Coretta* and a entourage had traveled to India to meet with representatives of Mohandas Gandhi.
*Not to be confused with Coretta Scott King's trip to Hanoi and along with her husband, communist Ghana.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ther-King-Jr&p=4907901&viewfull=1#post4907901
Martin Luther King Jr. (aka Michael King) was quoted as saying this about Ghandi:
..."the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change" (Papers 5:231).
http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_kings_trip_to_india/
Let's learn more about King's hero Mohandas Gandhi, as it appears that they had much in common:
From Selwyn Duke's article entitled:
Gandhi Reconsidered: When Paganism Met Progressivism
April 2011
When an Indian-born man I knew a couple of decades ago expressed an intense dislike for Mohandas Gandhi, I found it a bit surprising. Wasn’t the “Great Soul,” that quintessential 20th-century icon, India’s George Washington?
That certainly is the narrative created by historians — who, history has taught us, can tell a lie — and works such as Richard Attenborough’s award-winning 1982 film Gandhi. But there is a reason why Indian-born novelist Salman Rushdie responded to that movie by lamenting, “Deification is an Indian disease. Why should Attenborough do it?” And with Gandhi back in the news owing to a newly published biography about him, it’s fitting to examine what that reason might be.
Any discussion of Gandhi should start with what most characterizes his image: non-violence and respect for all peoples. And the image certainly is a bit different from the reality. Everyone knows, for instance, about how Gandhi advocated non-violence in India’s struggle against the British; what is less well known is that, after the British’s 1906 declaration of war against the Zulus in South Africa, Gandhi encouraged that nation’s Indians to support the military effort, writing, “If the Government only realised what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.” And while the British weren’t amenable to this — thus, ironically, doing more at that time to ensure Indian pacifism than the drum-beating Gandhi — he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British army and allowed to lead a stretcher-bearer corps.
But while we can’t be sure if Gandhi really was concerned about the “The Natal Native trouble….,” as he put it, he certainly had reasons for supporting the war: He believed it would help Indians secure full citizenship rights from the British. And he seemed to have no compunction about achieving this on the backs of South African blacks. For example, he once said that “to be placed on the same level as the *Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs [a now derogatory term for blacks, although it likely had a different connotation a century ago] are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.” He also asserted that Indians are “undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs.”
Yet when Gandhi had the opportunity to support a truly just war, he again was found wanting. While the British were defending India against the Japanese in 1942, all Gandhi could think to do was busy himself trying to get the British to leave the subcontinent. And given that 40 percent of American POWs, 17 percent of Filipinos, and 23 million ethnic Chinese perished at the tyrannical Tokyo regime’s hands, Gandhi’s success would no doubt have meant disaster for his countrymen. Gandhi, however, was perhaps oblivious to such possibilities. After all, this was a man who believed there was “an exact parallel” between the British and the Third Reich.
Some may now say that he should have tried telling this to the Nazis’ millions of Jewish victims.
Well, he just might have.
As Andrew Roberts wrote is his review of Great Soul by Joseph Lelyveld (the aforementioned Gandhi biography):
We do know for certain that he [Gandhi] *advised the Czechs and Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, saying that "a single Jew standing up and *refusing to bow to Hitler's decrees’ might be enough ‘to melt Hitler's heart.’"… Starting a letter to Adolf *Hitler with the words "My friend," Gandhi egotistically asked: "Will you listen to the appeal of one who has *deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?" He advised the Jews of Palestine to "rely on the goodwill of the Arabs" and wait for a Jewish state "till Arab *opinion is ripe for it."
Article to be continued...
Many of you following this thread remember that Martin Luther King Jr. also compared the brave young soldiers of the United States military who were fighting in Vietnam to the Nazis.
In a sane society, traitors are tried and executed, not given a national holiday.
http://eastpointpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Journeys_of_Nonviolence_-_Gandhi_and_King.jpg
*Not to be confused with Coretta Scott King's trip to Hanoi and along with her husband, communist Ghana.
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ther-King-Jr&p=4907901&viewfull=1#post4907901
Martin Luther King Jr. (aka Michael King) was quoted as saying this about Ghandi:
..."the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change" (Papers 5:231).
http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_kings_trip_to_india/
Let's learn more about King's hero Mohandas Gandhi, as it appears that they had much in common:
From Selwyn Duke's article entitled:
Gandhi Reconsidered: When Paganism Met Progressivism
April 2011
When an Indian-born man I knew a couple of decades ago expressed an intense dislike for Mohandas Gandhi, I found it a bit surprising. Wasn’t the “Great Soul,” that quintessential 20th-century icon, India’s George Washington?
That certainly is the narrative created by historians — who, history has taught us, can tell a lie — and works such as Richard Attenborough’s award-winning 1982 film Gandhi. But there is a reason why Indian-born novelist Salman Rushdie responded to that movie by lamenting, “Deification is an Indian disease. Why should Attenborough do it?” And with Gandhi back in the news owing to a newly published biography about him, it’s fitting to examine what that reason might be.
Any discussion of Gandhi should start with what most characterizes his image: non-violence and respect for all peoples. And the image certainly is a bit different from the reality. Everyone knows, for instance, about how Gandhi advocated non-violence in India’s struggle against the British; what is less well known is that, after the British’s 1906 declaration of war against the Zulus in South Africa, Gandhi encouraged that nation’s Indians to support the military effort, writing, “If the Government only realised what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.” And while the British weren’t amenable to this — thus, ironically, doing more at that time to ensure Indian pacifism than the drum-beating Gandhi — he was appointed a Sgt. Major in the British army and allowed to lead a stretcher-bearer corps.
But while we can’t be sure if Gandhi really was concerned about the “The Natal Native trouble….,” as he put it, he certainly had reasons for supporting the war: He believed it would help Indians secure full citizenship rights from the British. And he seemed to have no compunction about achieving this on the backs of South African blacks. For example, he once said that “to be placed on the same level as the *Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs [a now derogatory term for blacks, although it likely had a different connotation a century ago] are as a rule uncivilized – the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals.” He also asserted that Indians are “undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Kaffirs.”
Yet when Gandhi had the opportunity to support a truly just war, he again was found wanting. While the British were defending India against the Japanese in 1942, all Gandhi could think to do was busy himself trying to get the British to leave the subcontinent. And given that 40 percent of American POWs, 17 percent of Filipinos, and 23 million ethnic Chinese perished at the tyrannical Tokyo regime’s hands, Gandhi’s success would no doubt have meant disaster for his countrymen. Gandhi, however, was perhaps oblivious to such possibilities. After all, this was a man who believed there was “an exact parallel” between the British and the Third Reich.
Some may now say that he should have tried telling this to the Nazis’ millions of Jewish victims.
Well, he just might have.
As Andrew Roberts wrote is his review of Great Soul by Joseph Lelyveld (the aforementioned Gandhi biography):
We do know for certain that he [Gandhi] *advised the Czechs and Jews to adopt nonviolence toward the Nazis, saying that "a single Jew standing up and *refusing to bow to Hitler's decrees’ might be enough ‘to melt Hitler's heart.’"… Starting a letter to Adolf *Hitler with the words "My friend," Gandhi egotistically asked: "Will you listen to the appeal of one who has *deliberately shunned the method of war not without considerable success?" He advised the Jews of Palestine to "rely on the goodwill of the Arabs" and wait for a Jewish state "till Arab *opinion is ripe for it."
Article to be continued...
Many of you following this thread remember that Martin Luther King Jr. also compared the brave young soldiers of the United States military who were fighting in Vietnam to the Nazis.
In a sane society, traitors are tried and executed, not given a national holiday.
http://eastpointpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Journeys_of_Nonviolence_-_Gandhi_and_King.jpg
