Could’ve sworn we had a discussion thread on this 2004 article by Cecil, but I can’t find it. Starting a new thread because there’s a new bio of Gandhi that mentions his, uh, rather different views on sex: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/thrill-of-the-chaste-the-truth-about-gandhis-sex-life-1937411.html
Jed Adams seems to be writing from authority, as it takes one to know one. I just don’t see where Gandhi’s sex drive is any different from anyone else. He tried to control such when most don’t even bother, and he failed a task that’s actually pretty difficult. I have to question Jed Adams’ motivation in writing a WHOLE BOOK on the matter. I suppose Gandhi’s fight against the caste system in India just didn’t rate the effort. I hate to break anyone’s rose-colored bubble, but a nation’s elderly statesmen sleeping with naked 16-year-old girls is NOT unusual. The Mayor of Portland, Oregon, gets as a benefit of office, free reign over the city’s Middle Schools for all sex he wants (Neil Goldschmidt). Otherwise, no one would want the job.
Is there a long string of illegitimate children tracing Gandhi’s travels?
Bold mine. Do you have any evidence that he failed at controlling his sex drive? From everything I’ve read, ‘sleeping with’ actually means sleeping with, as in non-sexually. The man was very messed up with regards to sex, thanks to the episode with his father, but he was truthful and public even about his ‘experiments with sex’. In fact, the accounts that ‘reveal’ his secret life are mostly built from his own statements about these experiments. I don’t see any evidence that he had actual sexual relations with any of these women.
From the article: ’ … the “involuntary discharges” which Gandhi complained of experiencing … ’ Jed Adams is trying to paint Gandhi as some kind of left-handed sex-mad freak. “Hahaha, MG still had to change sheets in the morning” (or some such). Why write a book about it while there’s still so much more to be said about the peaceful revolt against imperial oppression. I don’t see any evidence he was having sex with 16-year-olds either, but I’m not looking for any. I really wonder why Jed Adams looked hard enough to find a book’s worth of material. It’s kinda creepy if you think about it.
Sounded like you were accusing him of intercourse, rather than just acknowledging he had nocturnal emissions.
Is that in the city charter?
It’s more of a guideline.
He’s got some critics these days in Ghana and Malawi: https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/africa/gandhi-statue-ghana-intl/index.html
That’s a little disingenuous. It was not widely known until one of his disciples had a blow-up that split his ashram and only then did he make public statements about it. It is like saying that Donald Trump was very truthful and public about his affair with Stormy Daniels. Sure, he is now that he got caught, but not so much before it became public knowledge. There’s debate about how far he actually went in his ‘experiments’ or even if the ‘experiments’ were an excuse invented after the fact. I think that what’s most fair to say is that his attitude toward women would not have survived the #MeToo movement.
This doesn’t necessarily denigrate what Gandhi did, anymore than MLKs liaisons denigrate his accomplishments. Humans are flawed beings that do and think horrible things all the time and Gandhi was no different. He was a racist, classist and sexist, but he also led to a relatively peaceful independence for India and that should be lauded.
The best I recall, he is still denying the affair with Stormy Daniels. He only acknowledges payment, but not that he had the affair. Seems like he said elsewhere, he was just protecting Melania, didn’t want these false allegations getting out, according to him.
Where did this bizarre non-sequitur come from? (The incident in question was in the 1970’s, for those reading “gets as a benefit” in the present tense.) And referring to this as a “benefit” and that “otherwise, no one would want the job” is incredibly creepy, even if you meant it as a joke that misfired wildly.
Over a million dead is “peaceful”? Compared to what? A thermonuclear war?
And he was not the “leader”, by far.
I love the use of “racist” in that article. Ghandi was straight up, no doubt about it racist.
Here’s a quote of his about racism against Indians in South Africa:
“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.” Source
Not that kaffir in this context is exactly equivalent to nigger in the US. A word he used all the time when discussing why Indians in South Africa didn’t deserve to be discriminated against like black south Africans.