Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's nothing to do with that. Nowadays it's just an excuse to hate someone.

Agreed, nowadays it is an excuse to hate someone. But it does us well to remember that these things happened and not brush over people like Cromwell as heroes when they are in reality much more complicated than that.

mattyrm wrote:
We aren't going to say Napoleon and give the French any credit are we!?

Why you no give Hitler love?

Hitler got disqualified for never actually leading anyone in battle against British troops.

Da Boss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's nothing to do with that. Nowadays it's just an excuse to hate someone.

Agreed, nowadays it is an excuse to hate someone. But it does us well to remember that these things happened and not brush over people like Cromwell as heroes when they are in reality much more complicated than that.

Cromwell was a very complicated character, and not easily portrayed as any one polarized thing or another. He very well may not be a heroic character, and perhaps my choice of words may have been more extreme than intended. However, Cromwell was able to rectify an instance of what I consider to be one of the greatest injustices of civilzation: the right to rule by virtue of birth.

sirlynchmob wrote:Ghandi was not a racist, neither am I.

""The sight of wounded and whipped Zulus, mercilessly abandoned by their British persecutors, so appalled him that he turned full circle from his admiration for all things British to celebrating the indigenous and ethnic"
"Gandhi stayed in South Africa for 21 years, practicing as an attorney and organizing non-violent campaigns against discrimination and oppression."

he was the subject for a smear campaign, and also labeled him a bisexual. But that does not diminish the roll he played in gaining India's independence from the British and to demonstrate how non violent protests can send powerful messages to those who would oppress you. An idea Martin Luther King jr embraced as well.

Judging from your user name you must not be curious about the truth for fear it will kill you.

Judging from my user name I must enjoy the silly ending of a mediocre movie from the late 1990s.


And I'm not certain where you are getting your quotes from, as you have no citations. But let me help you out. You see, Ghandi once wrote a very famous letter regarding a post office. In his letter, he speaks out against racial segregation. Specifically, he speaks out against having Asiatics "dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir" (this quote is attributed to an open letter penned by Gandhi himself). You see, Ghandi was perfectly fine with the idea of racial segregation, just so long as he himself was not lumped into what he considered to be an 'untouchable' caste.

Kilkrazy wrote:Napoleon only fought one battle against Britain, Waterloo.

It was the arrival of the Prussians that turned the tide against him, of course, so it's arguable that it should be called a loss to Britain.

That's what is interesting about this kind of survey. It makes you look again at the normal assumptions and you often find out something new.

I don't think this is true. Napoleon, before he came to be in charge of the entire French nation, did battle and win against the British in Toulon. Even though he was only a Commander of Artillery at the time, it was mainly on his initiative that they did so well.

azazel the cat wrote:

Da Boss wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's nothing to do with that. Nowadays it's just an excuse to hate someone.

Agreed, nowadays it is an excuse to hate someone. But it does us well to remember that these things happened and not brush over people like Cromwell as heroes when they are in reality much more complicated than that.

Cromwell was a very complicated character, and not easily portrayed as any one polarized thing or another. He very well may not be a heroic character, and perhaps my choice of words may have been more extreme than intended. However, Cromwell was able to rectify an instance of what I consider to be one of the greatest injustices of civilzation: the right to rule by virtue of birth.

sirlynchmob wrote:Ghandi was not a racist, neither am I.

""The sight of wounded and whipped Zulus, mercilessly abandoned by their British persecutors, so appalled him that he turned full circle from his admiration for all things British to celebrating the indigenous and ethnic"
"Gandhi stayed in South Africa for 21 years, practicing as an attorney and organizing non-violent campaigns against discrimination and oppression."

he was the subject for a smear campaign, and also labeled him a bisexual. But that does not diminish the roll he played in gaining India's independence from the British and to demonstrate how non violent protests can send powerful messages to those who would oppress you. An idea Martin Luther King jr embraced as well.

Judging from your user name you must not be curious about the truth for fear it will kill you.

Judging from my user name I must enjoy the silly ending of a mediocre movie from the late 1990s.


And I'm not certain where you are getting your quotes from, as you have no citations. But let me help you out. You see, Ghandi once wrote a very famous letter regarding a post office. In his letter, he speaks out against racial segregation. Specifically, he speaks out against having Asiatics "dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir" (this quote is attributed to an open letter penned by Gandhi himself). You see, Ghandi was perfectly fine with the idea of racial segregation, just so long as he himself was not lumped into what he considered to be an 'untouchable' caste.

so no citation for your quote? well as near as I can tell it was supposedly written 1904. That was before he was imprisoned, and before the zulu wars. so if we assume he actually wrote it, are you saying its impossible to change your mind? does that one quote negate all the other things he did for India and South Africa afterwards? He's by no means the etch a sketch romney is, but its not unheard of to change you position and see the errors of your ways and grow beyond that.

my quotes were from his wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

LordofHats wrote:Hitler got disqualified for never actually leading anyone in battle against British troops.

Wasn't he a corporal in WW1? He would have led a squad then.

He was a rear echelon pig. A messenger boy.

Mannahnin wrote:He was a rear echelon pig. A messenger boy.

He was still decorated though and a lot of that article seems very biased to say the least. Plus it is in the Daily fail which is far from the most reliable to newspapers.

I do find Washington's nomination amusing though.

@ Sirlynchmob: I thought I did cite my source, albeit in a very condescending manner. It's a primary source. Here's the full quote:

"A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or 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." (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

Now, since you have decided to quote Wikipedia as a reputable source of information, I have lost interest in taking this further. However, I will leave you with one piece of advice: please learn about Hinduism's caste system, and try to critically apply what you learn about that to Gandhi.

He wasn't a saint, and he was lucky that his enemies were not willing to kill his unarmed people by the thousands. If Gandhi had tried his nonviolent protests against a less civilized regime like that of Pol Pot, then you'd have never even learned his name.

azazel the cat wrote:@ Sirlynchmob: I thought I did cite my source, albeit in a very condescending manner. It's a primary source. Here's the full quote:

"A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or 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." (Reference: The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Government of India (CWMG), Vol I, p. 150)

Now, since you have decided to quote Wikipedia as a reputable source of information, I have lost interest in taking this further. However, I will leave you with one piece of advice: please learn about Hinduism's caste system, and try to critically apply what you learn about that to Gandhi.

He wasn't a saint, and he was lucky that his enemies were not willing to kill his unarmed people by the thousands. If Gandhi had tried his nonviolent protests against a less civilized regime like that of Pol Pot, then you'd have never even learned his name.

''

Ghandhi rejected the caste system. "During his life, he advocated independence for India and worked to alleviate poverty in his country and end the caste system"
http://www.great-quotes.com/quotes/author/Mahatma/Gandhi

wiki is easy to cite as its not copy righted Plus wiki lists references that you can look further into what is cited there and verify what was said, but most of the other references are harder to find digital copies of due to copy rights..

and again that was before the events that lead him to rejecting the british way of life and adopting his philosophy of non violence.

so your still saying one verse probably taken out of context means he was just another racists? that it is impossible to change your mind and become a better person? you say one thing wrong and it defines your whole life? Think of everything you've posted on dakka, do you still believe in everything you've said? If we look at all your dakka posts and other things you've posted on the net, what kind of person would that paint you as? is that all you are and all you ever will be?

azazel the cat wrote:Cromwell was a very complicated character, and not easily portrayed as any one polarized thing or another. He very well may not be a heroic character, and perhaps my choice of words may have been more extreme than intended. However, Cromwell was able to rectify an instance of what I consider to be one of the greatest injustices of civilzation: the right to rule by virtue of birth.

Oh if only he had.

LordofHats wrote:Hitler got disqualified for never actually leading anyone in battle against British troops.

Poppycock, he fought the war of politics on behalf of the master race.

Dogma's going Clauswitz up in here