I think it is a little more than statements that he made. In 1906 he was demonstrating against blacks. I mean when you are a Sgt. Major in the Brisih army (in a war against the blacks) you can't exactly say your young either. He even published propaganda about the war.

I wouldn't say people should write him historically, but I also don't believe that he should be held up with other religious leaders.

I think it is a little more than statements that he made. In 1906 he was demonstrating against blacks. I mean when you are a Sgt. Major in the Brisih army (in a war against the blacks) you can't exactly say your young either. He even published propaganda about the war.

I wouldn't say people should write him historically, but I also don't believe that he should be held up with other religious leaders.

In 1906, he was still in his 30's, still learning the complex politcal and social systems at work, and working primarily for what he percieved as most important at the time: The needs of the Indian people. His philosophies and ideas were still evolving.

Look, I'm no Gandhi expert, bu this may help:

So someone brought up in a racist, segregated society allowed those views to influence early thinking in writing? A shame, for certain, but not unexpected.

What was unexpected and what he is remembered for, is eventually leaving those views behind (bearing in mind politcal concessions made, of course), and embracing non-violence totally, a dedication to a serch for truth (which includes, according to him, learning from past mistakes) which has inspired thousands, sympathy for both human and non-human animals and a devout approach to Hindu.

These are the things he is remembered for. His spirituality led him to lead a non-violent revolution against the largest empire in the world. That worked to a degree. That's pretty phenominal and inspiring. Again, yes, he was a flawed man - all humans are flawed - but he attempted to learn from his errors and strove for the betterment of creatures against a lot of adversity.

Look, Jesus was in all reality probably a mentally ill failed carpenter, with some supremely lucid moments of introspection, and people seem to hold him in pretty high regard. Even though he encouraged vandalism (smash that temple, baby!) and randomly cursed out fig trees, they don't seem to invalidate his ideas of love for all beings.

I have not a clue.

However, I think his actions spoke louder than a public apology.

To borrow a quote from the man, "Be the change you want to see in the world."

I know that every single thing he ever said was not written down, but, if did not recant, then doesn't sit well with me. If he had recanted it would have done a world of good for blacks in India that he had once fought against.

Back then, the public apology wasn't the institution it is now. The modern public apology is more of P.R. device than a statement of genuine intent. Mel Gibson, Michael Richards... these people publicly apologize for their racist statements because they have something to actively gain, their lives depend on public perception.

All of Gandhi's questionable comments - from what I've been able to discern - can be confined to a certain period of his life. A period before he launched into life and world changing endeavors. To me, his later philosophy and statements regarding truth, peace and equality are more than enough apology, and evidence of an enlightening mind.

If you feel happiest calling Gandhi racist, that is fine. I just think you're focussing too much on one specific period in the mans life, and not looking at the larger picture.

I've been serious for far too long now... I'm off to make a fart joke or something.  :)

I really like this thread. I'm glad I waited to read it until a lot of people responded and I could get into the right mindframe put in my 2 cents. I'm going to have to check out "the God Delusion", its sounds very interesting. Who is Jessica Sweeny?

I was raised Catholic. I think some of the stories in the bible are cute (noah's arc & such) and in general the ten comandments are good rules to live by, but other than that its all just silly and hypocritical to me.  I don't really think that there is God for many of the same reasons that others have said the same thing, it just doesn't make sense to me that there is some all knowing creature watching over everyone and judging us.  Also: I thought if you confessed your sins they all went away, so what's with all the hating on the gay and divorced?  ::)

Recently I have been reading up on Buddhsim. No God to obey, you are responsible for yourself. It's teaching me to appreciate what I have and to live more "in the moment" It has brought me some peace and I think I am becoming a better person because of it. So far I like it but I do not feel knowledgable enough yet to call myself Buddhist. I also don't know if I really believe in riencarnation.

I do celebrate all of the "christian" holidays the american way though. We put up a Christmas tree, exchange gifts, and Make Easter Baskets. I decorate the house with Shamrocks for Saint Patricks Day, hearts for Valentines Day, and we go ALL OUT for Halloween.....How is following any of these traditions religous? I don't really see any connection between any of these activities and beliving in "God" or "Jesus". To me they are just fun traditions to follow. I also sometimes celebrate Chinese New Year when we realize that it is coming up by going into philly to watch the parade and dragon dances & eat yummy food. I have no idea of the significance of that holiday, I just think it is fun.

Lauranc, I'm with you here.  I have no problem at all taking Gandhi as a great man and spiritual guide even if he was an idiot or an @$$hole at one point in his life.  Religion is full of idiots and @$$holes reaching an awakening that makes them stop being idiots and @$$holes and start being awesome.  But I can't respect someone unless she has actually stopped being an idiot and an @$$hole.  If Gandhi did reverse his racist views, there should be some evidence of this that we can find.  (After all, if he did reverse his views and never told anyone he was wrong, well that sucks in a different way.  It's still tacit support for racist views.  If you support segregation and then realize you were wrong, you have a duty to tell people you were wrong, especially if you're as politically important as Gandhi was.)  I don't easily ignore racism, so I can't just say to myself "well Gandhi was so awesome in other ways, I'll just respect him even if he was anti-black."  That, in my mind, disqualifies someone for being deserving of respect.  Again, if (as I still think is likely) he REALIZED he was being an @$$hole and an idiot, and STOPPED being an @$$hole and an idiot, then that's a great relief to me, and I would continue to consider Gandhi one of the greatest humans in history.  But if he did stop, there should be some evidence of it.  And if he didn't... well, I don't think that's a minor, nitpicky thing.  It's sort of important.

This concept of requiring specific apologies for comments - which some argue is more anger at the criminals he was housed with, and ignorant people in general... but that's another side of the debate - is a bit silly to me.

I ate meat for 27 years. I have yet to hold a press conference renouncing my meat eating or apologize face to face to a cow. How much of a statement do I need to make?

If the man moved on from that period in time, and just left it there, where is the harm? Does the term "all" or "everyone" appear with asterisks in his works to denote "except blacks"?

Again, I think his actions speak for themselves in the time since those writings. He wasn't striving for good P.R., or to appeal to the American sense of justice. He was striving for equality, non-violence and peace for all.

(No Asterisk)

I'm going to have to say that I think we will have to disagree and_it_spoke.

Had you fought a war against a particular race, then changed your mind and thought it was wrong, you would think that you would publicly criticized your own actions.

Some of his quotes about blacks are extremely vial. (I don't want to post them, but I'm sure anyone could find them on the web if they would like.) I don't think it is unrealistic to expect a public acknowledgement and the statements/actions to be recanted- no matter what year.

If the man moved on from that period in time, and just left it there, where is the harm?

The harm is in the continued tacit support for the racist views from a man idolized by millions, probably at least a billion.  The harm is that a lot of people can come away thinking that Gandhi, even late in life, was anti-black.  For many people, that is legitimation for anti-black views.  This is different from you and your diet, because I presume that nobody looks to you for dietary guidance who does not know that you have abandoned meat.

And again, even lacking a public apology, if he gave up his racist views there will be evidence to support that.  For someone whose life is as well-documented as Gandhi's, it would be extraordinarily unusual if no such evidence survived.

Additionally, there were no claims at the time that these statements were racist. These are recent assertions, from what I can tell. How can someone apologize for something they may not be aware of doing?

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Can you elaborate?

If the man moved on from that period in time, and just left it there, where is the harm?

The harm is in the continued tacit support for the racist views from a man idolized by millions, probably at least a billion.  The harm is that a lot of people can come away thinking that Gandhi, even late in life, was anti-black.  For many people, that is legitimation for anti-black views.  This is different from you and your diet, because I presume that nobody looks to you for dietary guidance who does not know that you have abandoned meat.

And again, even lacking a public apology, if he gave up his racist views there will be evidence to support that.  For someone whose life is as well-documented as Gandhi's, it would be extraordinarily unusual if no such evidence survived.

Additionally, there were no claims at the time that these statements were racist. These are recent assertions, from what I can tell. How can someone apologize for something they may not be aware of doing?

I don't understand what you're saying here.  Can you elaborate?

Very quickly (stupid work!), I'm saying that Gandhi, like anyone was a product of his times. In retrospect, his views are racist. Not considered so at the time. That doesn't make his statements good or right, but they can make sense in periodic and societal context.

That sounds a lot to me like the rhetoric that people use to ignore when someone was a slaveowner, or the genocides of Columbus.  That reasoning doesn't take me any distance at all.  Everyone currently doing harm today is a product of our times.  That doesn't make it okay.  That doesn't make it excusable.  There were people in Gandhi's time (not that long ago, you know) who knew better, so even if that were an excuse, it's not a very good one at all.

Not considered racist at the time?  Not considered racist by whom?  By most Indians?  By most white people?  I can tell you with certainty that there sure were a HELL of a lot of people who did know that the policies of South Africa and India were racist and wrong.  The blacks in Gandhi's society oppressed by these policies knew they were racist.  And they weren't alone.  (In fact, there were clearly enough such people that the supporters of the racist views felt it necessary to demonstrate and take political action in support of those policies.)  So unless we're saying it's okay to believe whatever the majority believes -- and God save us if we say that -- then this is to me no excuse at all.