And Mohandas Gandhi, who really did turn the other cheek? Those who try to serve all humanity, whether or not all humanity serves them in turn?
This prompts me to propose a new heuristic: treat any claims of great and improbable virtue with great skepticism.
In Saul Alinksky’s telling (in “Rules for Radicals”), Gandhi adopted nonviolence because it was the best option he had. The Indians had no guns and no way to get them. Gandhi also complained about the passivity of Indians. He turned these weaknesses into strengths. Passive sit-in’s and passive resistance to shame the British into doing the right thing.
Later, when the Indians were in charge and had guns they invaded Kashmir. Nehru expected Gandhi to condemn the resort to violence but he stayed silent.
Another example of an allegedly highly virtuous person who deservces close scrutiny is Mother Theresa. But I suspect this is so well known I will not rehearse the details (a search for Christopher Hittchens Mother Theresa should get you there).
In Saul Alinksky’s telling (in “Rules for Radicals”), Gandhi adopted nonviolence because it was the best option he had. The Indians had no guns and no way to get them.
He didn’t have to fight in the first place. He didn’t have to sacrifice himself.
He engaged in actions that for him personally contained a high likelihood of getting tortured and a relatively low chance of success.
Gandhi also complained about the passivity of Indians. He turned these weaknesses into strengths. Passive sit-in’s and passive resistance to shame the British into doing the right thing.
Gandhi didn’t just advocate passivity. He advocated active law breaking by gathering salt.
Later, when the Indians were in charge and had guns they invaded Kashmir. Nehru expected Gandhi to condemn the resort to violence but he stayed silent.
Gandhi actually died within a year of that event because he was seen to be too friendly to Muslims. He got killed by a fellow Hindu because he was too much against violence.
This prompts me to propose a new heuristic: treat any claims of great and improbable virtue with great skepticism.
In Saul Alinksky’s telling (in “Rules for Radicals”), Gandhi adopted nonviolence because it was the best option he had. The Indians had no guns and no way to get them. Gandhi also complained about the passivity of Indians. He turned these weaknesses into strengths. Passive sit-in’s and passive resistance to shame the British into doing the right thing.
Later, when the Indians were in charge and had guns they invaded Kashmir. Nehru expected Gandhi to condemn the resort to violence but he stayed silent.
Another example of an allegedly highly virtuous person who deservces close scrutiny is Mother Theresa. But I suspect this is so well known I will not rehearse the details (a search for Christopher Hittchens Mother Theresa should get you there).
He didn’t have to fight in the first place. He didn’t have to sacrifice himself. He engaged in actions that for him personally contained a high likelihood of getting tortured and a relatively low chance of success.
Gandhi didn’t just advocate passivity. He advocated active law breaking by gathering salt.
Gandhi actually died within a year of that event because he was seen to be too friendly to Muslims. He got killed by a fellow Hindu because he was too much against violence.