What made him so succesful as a peaceful leader?
Maybe it's my cynicism, but i still have a hard time believing he became such a big and respected figure without using violence.
Or so they say, anyway, i haven't read as much about him as i should have.
>>1290779
It was his vehement hate of niggers and his denial of temptation by laying with under 18 girls naked.
Can we talk about Gandhi's life in South Africa?
What happened there that changed him so much?
>>1290971
>cultural Marxist education
>>1290978
He was blue pilled in South Africa
Then he became red pilled
>>1290779
He was willing to unite the people of India under one banner and didn't look at his people through a bigoted lens of religion and race. He opposed any violence by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs, but still tried to get them to unite against the Brits. It was pretty profound because pretty much the masses of each religion were willing to use violence, as years of British rule caused a great amount of sectarianism among the populace. A great man, willing to make Jinnah the future PM of India, but Jinnah refused, knowing that there would be a great deal of blood shed at this point, as Muslims were so keen to the idea of the partition of India, and the creation of an Islamic Republic.
>>1290992
Shout out to my Indian brothers. May the subcontinent prosper once again. One day we will unite, we are one people.
>>1290779
His willingness to nuke the shit out anyone who crosses him.
play Civilization V and find out
Timing.
He presented a pacifist resistance at a time during and shortly thereafter the biggest war in history. The will to engage him with violence was at its nadir, and his pacifist and anticolonial stances won a lot of supporters in the post WW2 politicla climate.
>>1290978
He was annoyed that in South Africa, Indians were likened to blacks.
To be inferior to brits had seemingly never stirred, but he couldn't fathom being seen as on par to blacks.
So apparently he spazzed out into his liberation movement. Indians to this day are pretty racist and as arrogant. No citation needed on this one because you've all witnessed it on the Internet presumably.
>>1291039
>No citation needed on this one because you've all witnessed it on the Internet presumably.
The crux of unbiased information.
>>1291039
>Indians to this day are pretty racist and as arrogant. No citation needed on this one because you've all witnessed it on the Internet presumably.
Ah yes, who could forget the poo in loo meme
>>1291039
>Indians to this day are pretty racist
Yeah, because it's Indians making memes about white people on anonymous forums
>>1291062
>>1291051
>>1291054
It's as if none of you have ever read accounts of how Indians behaved in colonial Kenya, and nor have ever witnessed how the Indian media depicts blacks in racist fashion.
Lastly, I have a half-Indian cousin, and therefore cannot be biased against Indians. Checkmate atheists.
>>1290978
He realised he was as inferior as a nigger.
I don't get Indians who come to America and expect to be treated like whites
>>1290971
Gandhi's biographer and grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, says the younger Gandhi - he arrived in South Africa as a 24-year-old briefless lawyer - was undoubtedly "at times ignorant and prejudiced about South Africa's blacks". He believes Gandhi's "struggle for Indian rights in South Africa paved the way for the struggle of black rights". He argues that "Gandhi too was an imperfect human being", but the "imperfect Gandhi was more radical and progressive than most contemporary compatriots"
Presentism is generally applying modern day values and ideals backwards into the past, and thus viewing the events that happened in the past much as we would view events happening in the present. It creates a bias in writing in that it ignores the historical context for actions, and replaces them with a modern context.
Also the sleeping with the chicks may as well be a cultural thing. From what I've read, countries like India did not have such a taboo of sex in the past like Europe or more specifically the UK.
>>1291074
>Lastly, I have a half-Indian cousin, and therefore cannot be biased against Indians
"Guise I have a black friend so I can't be racyst"
>>1291074
>>1291074
>It's as if none of you have ever read accounts of how Indians behaved in colonial Kenya
Ah yes, Indians weren't obedient to the colonials, therefore they are racist.
>>1291080
Sleep is exactly what it means. He slept with other people in same bed.
Thanks to the retardation of cultural Marxism, the infected minds interpret that as sexual intercourse.
>>1291095
This.
>>1291074
>It's as if none of you have ever read accounts of how Indians behaved in colonial Kenya
Who were these account written by? Another question, how did Indians end up in Africa? Refresh my memory.
>>1291107
Willingly submitting themselves to the bastion of civilization and justice, also known as the British empire, also known to carry out no atrocities, genocides, instill racist sentiments into their subjects.
>>1291119
Ah yes, they willingly did it until they realized how deceitful Brits were.
Are you sugarcoating British imperialism?
>>1291119
>bastion of civilization
Didn't two World Wars take place in Europe? Oh how civilized the Brits are.
>>1291124
that is a false quote
>>1291135
>guise that's false lol
>>1291124
British colonialism was a literal cancer. No matter how much I sugarcoat it, it will always be looked at as a plague.
>>1291131
Because it was the British that started both world wars right......
>>1291131
>>1291145
>England did not declare war on Germany
>>1291147
>germany did not invade belgium
>germany did not invade poland
>>1291150
Let's not make this one of those threads.
>>1291150
but it's ok for Brits to invade and colonize the world
>>1291156
In the name of "civilizing" the rest of the world. Truly pathetic.
>>1291156
Nice strawman.
>>1291140
it was never attributed to him you delusional bhakt.
>>1291160
>be Brit
>"civilized" India
>instigate riots among Hindu and Muslim communities
>leave
>>1291167
""""""""""""""""""""""civilizing""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>>1291167
he was on your side moron.
>>1290779
Timing.
>>1291039
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYy77IGsBFc
If I'm going to judge racism in people by how much I see on the internet, we're in some fucking trouble.
>>1291169
So Brits failed to civilize the world.
Is it because they aren't civilized themselves?
>>1291174
They failed to civilize the world because their very intention was corrupt from the beginning. They sought to steal and destroy, which was the very essence of their rule.
>>1291039
>goes to SA
>realizes that all indians are one people
>comes back home
>>1291116
It was a weird Rasputin-esque thing
>>1290779
It's because he was in the right place at the right time.
India was getting a lot of media attention, the Indian people loved him, and many other countries already got independent from the UK and other Empires.
So he was smart enough to realize non-violence would work in that case at that time. Because decolonization became a mainstream idea across the globe.
Today, it would be useless, especially since most wars today are about taking control and expansion. Decolonization is basically finished at this point. Now it's about re-colonization. mostly, dividing up and conquering the Lavent.
>>1291074
Indians are racist, sure. Most people are. Indians are up there due to their history of a caste system.
But Europeans and Japanese are still top dogs when it comes to racist. India is a distant 3rd.
>>1291264
The Caste system is not based on race. It's based on social order.
>>1291145
Yes? They were all in on it. WWI was caused by every nation involved saying "I wish a nigga would." WWII was caused by British and French oppression of Germans. The modern Middle East is shit because of how the British and the French fucked up dividing the region up among themselves.
European Empires were the worst Empires in history. They were the only Empires that used complete and utter force and fear to rule their subjects, and they wonder why all of them wanted to decolonize.
>>1291273
it doesn't matter, it encourages bigotry on a divine level.
Racism is bigotry. it's all the same. People today can't be racist, so they find other things to be bigoted about, like religions or "culture" or nationalism. It's part of the same thought process and is all just tribalism, just with different names.
you really think the caste system doesn't impose a bigoted ideology onto it's people?
>>1291273
The inherent sentiment of racism instilled within the caste system has links that stem to the Aryan invasion, when a race of lighter skinned central Asians invaded the Indian subcontinent. The descendants of those native Indians are the darker skinned Dravidian peoples which mostly reside in the southern regions of India. The reason that darker skinned people in India and Pakistan are still considered lower than shit is because of larger culture which was influenced by the caste system, which denoted non-Aryans as "untouchables".
>>1291297
>Aryan invasion
You blatantly left out "theory".
Aryan invasion never happened.
>>1291304
>linguistics and genetics aren't real
Back to revleft, shoo.
>>1291297
The Aryan Invasion theory is Brit propaganda for divide and conquer.
>>1291304
It did. Put aside your historic revisionism due to your Indian nationalism. Look at genetics, language and culture of the Vedic peoples.
>>1291308
>linguist and genetics proves that
when a race of lighter skinned central Asians invaded the Indian subcontinent. The descendants of those native Indians are the darker skinned Dravidian peoples which mostly reside in the southern regions of India. The reason that darker skinned people in India and Pakistan are still considered lower than shit is because of larger culture which was influenced by the caste system, which denoted non-Aryans as "untouchables".
Where are you pulling this from? Your ass?
>>1291297
>The reason that darker skinned people in India and Pakistan are still considered lower than shit is because of larger culture which was influenced by the caste system
More like Bollywood brainwashing.
>>1291315
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_period
>>1291321
I guess salty Dravidians will just remain salty
>>1291297
That's fucking retarded.
"Hey bro, these guys are light skinned, let's give them complete and total control over us, because of our dark skin!"
>>1291308
>that can only be caused by invasion
They literally live next to each other. Just like half black, half white Americans exist because Kenya is invading America. please stop the retardation.
>>1291325
Hence, invasion.
>>1291273
It is heredity and thus racial. Theie genes are partitioned by caste considering only 7℅ of the genes being shared within the race, the rest is dependent on ingroup.
>>1291328
Do you know what invasion means?
I think that's the issue you are having. I think you mean invasion means trade, intermarriage, and sharing borders.
Don't link wiki articles, either. There is no proof large scale invasions of India happened by the Aryans. only trade.
>>1291324
>citing Wikipedia
Take me back to the days of the Internet when having discussions did not resort to Wikipedia.
Millennials are scum of this earth.
>>1291342
I didn't think we wuz poos were a thing
T. Indian diaspora
>>1291337
The caste system was not based on heredity. It was based on reincarnation. There is no link between heredity and reincarnation.
>>1291349
>resorting to memes
Alright guys, I won this thread, let's move on.
>>1291355
In India it was hereditary. You were born into a noble family because of your karma.
They changed this officially, but it still exists.
>>1291342
>I think you mean invasion means trade, intermarriage, and sharing borders.
All of that did happen, but a large amount of the indigenous population were wiped out. See ancient Vedic literature.
>>1291356
t. dravidian
>>1291355
Endogamy caste members marry within their caste, but outside their clan (gotra).
Have you seen how seriously these people take marriage and patriarchy, lineage is diligent.
>>1291365
>patriarchy
>>1291370
It is meant in the most clinical sense of patrilineal. Have you seen their divorce rates?
>>1291378
>Wikipedia
Alright, I'm done with this discussion.
>>1291277
Is this bait?
>>1291427
Nope. It's the current generation.
>>1291398
What is wrong with sourced wikipedia articles for a /his/ discussion?
Also, India old and contemporary is overtly patriarchal.
>>1291039
If Indians are pretty racists to this day. Does that mean US/Europe are hardcore racist?
Racism is not a thing in India as a society. Its got a caste system that they're trying to get rid of. Not racial issues.
>>1291167
>Instigate the riots
How? I'm fairly sure it was stated over a misunderstanding regarding the gun grease being made from pork fat or something (not true)
>>1291143
this
>>1291447
>Its got a caste system that they're trying to get rid of.
"Trying"
>Not racial issues.
Uh yes they have racial issues.
>>1291522
They've gotten rid of it. There's probably more 4chin memers that are legit racists than there are Indians racists.
>>1291540
Yeah dude 60 years of equality propaganda dissolves sectarian disparity and blood ties totally.
>>1291348
Great argument
>>1291313
its migration over a long period of time you moron.
>>1291611
no, forcibly mixing people up does that.
>>1291910
Whites can't tell immigration apart from invasion because that is rather fair and accurate.
>>1291915
No diversity always ramps up ingroup identity and society stops being cohesive
>>1290779
>What made him so succesful as a peaceful leader?
Two things here
First ask yourself what actually makes him a successful person and you will find more hype than substance.
>He managed to make the UK give up the jewel in the crown
Take a look at pic related, the UK did not loose anything other than the responsibility and cost of running the country. The post war period marked the beginning of the post colonial phase of imperialism. Having developed the infrastructure in these countries combined with protectionism against other european powers not being worthwhile meant that holding onto political power in colonies was no longer desirable or necessary. Notice how every single British holding in Africa also managed to achieve independence peacefully - look at the picture and you will see nothing but continued growth despite them "loosing" the colonies. Indeed the only time you would see them getting involved in violence was when it involved suppressing communists.
Hence the Brits gave up the increasingly costly and burdensome political power but kept and arguably enhanced their economic power.
The second thing you need to ask yourself is "was Ghandi the only Indian trying to get independence?" The answer is no. Firstly there were the more dominant and far less pacifist figures in the Indian National Congress which and secondly there was also a rather pernicious socialist movement.
Accordingly for the Brits they knew full well that if they tried to hold on to political power for too long they could risk loosing their economic power.
>>1290978
He was thrown out of a train
>>1292002
but thats not what happened in india at all.
>>1291039
The internet and real life are 2 different places turd.
>>1294277
what?
There is more to life than 4chan?
