5
   

Who are your favorite liberal/progressives of All-Time

 
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 06:00 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Still think he changed the world as it existed.

He contributed to the Holocaust, for one thing.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 06:13 am
@Lash,
That seems quite speculative. You'd have to find something Gandhi positively said or wrote to convince me that he was racist. I can very easily post absolutely disgusting writings by Luther on Jews; he wrote extensively about the topic, devoting an entire treatise to it (Of Jews and their Lies). Gandhi neve r wrote anything similar on "blacks and their lies".

Hitler too changed the course of history, and opposed the dominant powers of his time. That doesn't make him a progressive. That term describes someone who contributed to some progress. I don't see what progress Luther contributed to.

Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 06:26 am
@Olivier5,
Following your reasoning, so did Gandhi. Draw that line, please.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 06:28 am
@Olivier5,
I can’t understand how you don’t see how the lives of the poor improved fabulously due toMartin Luther pulling back the curtain on church corruption, monopoly, and deception.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 06:42 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
I can’t understand how you don’t see how the lives of the poor improved fabulously due toMartin Luther pulling back the curtain on church corruption, monopoly, and deception.
Well, the Lutheran monopoly wasn't any different.
But how did he improve the lives of the poor? Luther's Reformation had rather negative effects on the poor, basically promoting much more repressive measures. (Actually quite understandable, because as an Augustine monk he wasn't really involved in helping the poor.)

Did you know that the medical care for the poor was free of charge in most German countries? (Thus, the hospital in my native town dates back to 1374, built by a fraternity for the poor, which existed already in 1328.)
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 07:01 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Serfs were told that their holy book required the direct payment of indulgences to pay their dead loved ones out of purgatory or toward the survival of a sick child.

Compounding the serf's situation, only church personnel were taught to read. The society's strict rules were dictated by the church, who recognized their position, and just began fabricating **** to enrich themselves.

Chaucer didn't leave the church unscathed regarding this in his Canterbury Tales, but I'm sure you know this.

Martin Luther also translated the Bible into German so the masses could see for themselves what was written. That was pivotal toward more equality among social classes.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 08:21 am
If you put a microscope on most any political figure, you will find nits to pick. All we can do is judge the overall result of their having been here. For instance, one could write whole books about Franklin Roosevelt's shortcomings, but he remains my all time favorite political person. Restoring the spirit of and modernizing his New Deal is the moving factor in all of my political motives.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 08:36 am
@Olivier5,
Here's a look at our bud, Gandhi.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ghana-university-row-re-ignites-debate-about-mahatma-gandhis-racism-67269

Ghana University row re-ignites debate about Mahatma Gandhi's racism

Suraj Yengde

November 15, 2016 7.10pm SAST
Updated November 16, 2016 11.19am SAST
The statue of Mahatma Gandhi is to be removed from the University of Ghana campus after a campaign by academic staff based on claims that the Indian leader was a racist. Politics and society editor Thabo Leshilo asked Suraj Yengde about the controversy.

Is the claim that Gandhi was racist valid?

Yes. The respected book, The South African Gandhi: Stretcher-Bearer of Empire by academics Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed, provides proof that Gandhi was not only racist but also sexist, misogynist, casteist, supremacist and a patriarch.

He displayed a contemptible attitude towards black Africans. He held the Indian to be “much superior, in capacity, reliability and obedience, to the average Kaffir”, as quoted in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (p. 50-51). He constantly opposed integration of blacks and Indians and loathed the classification of Indians with the “Kaffir race”, also in The Collected Works (p. 364). (“Kaffir” is a derogatory term used to refer to black South Africans.) He found it “insulting” to be “placed in the same category with the Native” (p. 220).

Gandhi assumed that the natives were “barbarians” and that they were “yet being taught the dignity and necessity of labour” (p. 367). On various occasions Gandhi successfully petitioned for separation of Indians (in the Collected Works again, here on p. 368-9) from the black Africans claiming the inferiority of blacks.

For example he wrote in an open letter (p. 193):

A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.
Gandhi opposed inter-race relations, such as between an Indian man and a black woman. In his Gujarati version of Indian Opinion (December 2, 1910) he admitted in inadvertently that:

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 (p. 414).
He believed that “the white race in South Africa should be the predominating race” (p.255-6).

Gandhi’s patriarchy, sexism and misogyny are also well documented. He regarded women as manipulating creatures who invigorated fanciful phallic desires in men, squarely blaming women for the incidents of domestic violence, Rita Banerji writes in her book, Sex and Power: Defining History, Shaping Societies.

He apparently believed that women who were raped or sexually abused or whose “purity is violated” should consider suicide “through sheer will force”, according to Sujata Patel in Construction and Reconstruction of Woman In Gandhi (page 278).

Gandhi was deplorable towards oppressed castes – spiritually and politically. He believed the caste and the varna system to be the foundation of an ethical society, thus promoted separation based on caste vigorously. This translated into the public practices too, where he was on guard to snatch away the rights of “untouchables” for self-emancipation obtained via separate electorates.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 08:59 am
@Olivier5,
Gandhi did actually write a lot of heinous **** about blacks. It's detailed in my previous post.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:01 am
@Lash,
I don't think that this book represents the whole truth. In his youth his ideas were pretty banal and narrowly nationalistic, but the guy evolved. For instance:

Quote:
The second event was during the Bambatha Uprising in 1906, whose Centenary we have and are commemorating this year. Gandhi led an ambulance corps to help the wounded among the Zulu people. He later wrote in his autobiography that:

"The Zulu 'rebellion' was full of new experiences and gave me much food for thought. The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the 'rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt. To hear every morning reports of the soldiers' rifles exploding like crackers in innocent Hamlets, and to live in the midst of them was a trial. But I swallowed the bitter draught, especially as the work of my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulus. I could see that but for us the Zulus would have been uncared for. This work, therefore, eased my conscience.


So, in a war between native blacks and colonizing whites, Gandhi set up an ambulance corps to attend to the wounded among blacks... Racist, really?

It's very easy to nitpick, but it is less easy to achieve the sort of historically positive impact Gandhi achieved in his life...
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:09 am
I'm going to go with Tommy Douglas, socialist firebrand and father of universal health care in Canada (and grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland).

http://www.canadashistory.ca/explore/politics-law/history-idol-tommy-douglas

Quote:
1944
With the leadership of the Saskatchewan provincial CCF vacant, Douglas returns home in 1942 to lead the party. He leads the CCF to a resounding victory in the 1944 provincial election, kicking off five terms as Premier of Saskatchewan. His government is the first social democratic government elected in North America. The opposition derides him as a communist or worse, but Douglas sets out modernize rural Saskatchewan. He brings electricity to family farms and provides a much needed expansion of health care in the province.

1959
Tommy Douglas had long been a believer in universal health care, a belief borne out of his social gospel background and seeing farmers unable to afford health care during the Great Depression. 1959 is the year that Douglas is finally able to make his Medicare plan public. His plan covers every person in Saskatchewan with pre-paid, publicly administered health care. Saskatchewan doctors and Douglas’ political opponents attack the plan viciously. Yet by the time Medicare is adopted in Saskatchewan in 1962, these attacks dissipate. Douglas does not see Medicare implemented under his watch, as he leaves provincial politics in 1961.

1961
By 1960, the national CCF has fallen on hard times. The party’s brain trust decides that the only way it can be saved is to develop a relationship with the Canadian labour movement. Out of the ashes of the CCF, the New Democratic Party rose in 1961 with Tommy Douglas as its national leader. Douglas leads the NDP from its birth until 1971. He continues to serve as an MP until he retires from politics in 1979. In 1966, the Pearson Liberal government enacts a national Medicare scheme whose basis is the success of Douglas’ Saskatchewan Medicare plan.


almost went with Nellie McClung but Tommy wins for me in the final analysis

waiting to see if Jagmeet Singh will be able to follow in the Tommy Douglas, Stephen Lewis, Jack Layton path

Stephen Lewis continues to do good things in the world. Much respect. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stephen-henry-lewis/ Naomi Klein is married to his son, Avi. The call to action is strong in this family.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:12 am
@Olivier5,
I'm glad to see you extend to Gandhi, as I do, the same understanding Martin Luther should get.

No human hero is perfect.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:20 am
@Lash,
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
In 1543 Luther's Prince, John Frederick I, Elector of Saxony, revoked some of the concessions he gave to Josel of Rosheim in 1539. Luther's influence persisted after his death. John of Brandenburg-Küstrin, Margrave of the New March, repealed the safe conduct of Jews in his territories. Philip of Hesse added restrictions to his Order Concerning the Jews. Luther's followers sacked the synagogue of Berlin in 1572 and in the following year the Jews were driven out of the entire Margravate of Brandenburg. In the 1580s riots led to expulsion of Jews from several German Lutheran states.

[...] In the 1570s Pastor Georg Nigrinus published Enemy Jew, which reiterated Luther's program in On the Jews and Their Lies, and Nikolaus Selnecker, one of the authors of the Formula of Concord, reprinted Luther's Against the Sabbatarians, On the Jews and Their Lies, and Vom Schem Hamphoras.

Luther's treatises against the Jews were reprinted again early in the 17th century at Dortmund, where they were seized by the Emperor. In 1613 and 1617 they were published in Frankfurt am Main in support of the banishment of Jews from Frankfurt and Worms. Vincenz Fettmilch, a Calvinist, reprinted On the Jews and Their Lies in 1612 to stir up hatred against the Jews of Frankfurt. Two years later, riots in Frankfurt saw the deaths of 3,000 Jews and the expulsion of the rest. [...]

The prevailing view among historians is that Luther's anti-Jewish rhetoric contributed significantly to the development of antisemitism in Germany, and in the 1930s and 1940s provided an ideal foundation for the Nazi Party's attacks on Jews.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:24 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
Serfs were told that their holy book required the direct payment of indulgences to pay their dead loved ones out of purgatory or toward the survival of a sick child.

Compounding the serf's situation, only church personnel were taught to read. The society's strict rules were dictated by the church, who recognized their position, and just began fabricating **** to enrich themselves.
I don't think that you are well read about the situation in Medieval Germany. (Chaucer lived in England)


English has no equivalents for the various, different terms we have here for "serfs". And we've got just one for farmer and peasant.

So my ancestors (from 1287 onward until the 1770's) were peasants[ /i] and serfs, could read (even Latin in 1287 and in the 14th century) and write, had a farmhouse/mansion, an own chapel, ....
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:24 am
@Olivier5,
I get that he was anti-Semitic.

You're attempting to avoid Gandhi's racism. Typical. You're a cherry-picker.

Building pedestals for men is ridiculous folly. No man is without failings, as these conversations show.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:28 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Yes. I took Chaucer at university. He satirized the church referencing their shady lies about indulgences.

The term serf can be considered peasant. You seem to be avoiding the point by tickling around inconsequential effluvia. (Wags finger)
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:33 am
Just FYI for anyone wandering by this without a reference: https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-canterbury-tales/themes/church-corruption

Chaucer is hilarious if you have the patience to hack your way though the language.

A partial summary:

The religious figures in The Canterbury Tales highlight many of the problems corrupting the medieval Church. The Monk, who is supposed to worship in confinement, likes to hunt. Chaucer’s Friar is portrayed as a greedy hypocrite. He tells a tale about a summoner who bribes an old innocent widow. The Summoner, in retaliation, skewers friars in his tale, satirizing their long-windedness and their hypocrisy. The Pardoner openly admits to selling false relics to parishioners. Though the Prioress supposedly wears a rosary in devotion to Christ, her ornate token seems much more like a flashy piece of jewelry than a sacred religious object.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:36 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
The term serf can be considered peasant.
Certainly not in German. (Ever heard of the 'Peasant Republics''?)
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:37 am
@Lash,
Not only was he antisemitic, but Luther's nefarious influence on German princes and people marked the course of history. He had a terrible, horrible impact on this issue. He's not a progressive in my book. Gandhi is, because he had IMO a positive influence on the course of history.

He might have been narrow-minded here or there, especially in his youth, and especially as seen with modern eyes, but that did not seem to affect his political impact.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Jun, 2018 09:45 am
I think we've clarified our opinions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/17/2024 at 10:33:42