South Park and what the f*ck censorship?

[GabonX]

I do believe that he mellowed out in his later years..

The common image people have of Gandhi isn't totally off, but it is incomplete.

[BigBallinStalin]

In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians".[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23]

Do you want a cookie? I'll buy you a cookie if you want..

Ruthless may be an overstatement, but the pro war/racist image we have of the young Gandhi stands in stark contrast to the image most people have of him.

It poses the question, did Gandhi use peaceful means to oppose the British because of ethics or because of pragmatism? ie, did he use the methods he did because he knew India could not win in a military confrontation...

Young Gandhi's racist image? Where?

[AndyDufresne]

In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians".[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23]

Do you want a cookie? I'll buy you a cookie if you want..

Ruthless may be an overstatement, but the pro war/racist image we have of the young Gandhi stands in stark contrast to the image most people have of him.

It poses the question, did Gandhi use peaceful means to oppose the British because of ethics or because of pragmatism? ie, did he use the methods he did because he knew India could not win in a military confrontation...

I've always believed it was a combination of both. There was no way he was going to stand up to them on a militaristic scale, but I think that he had to also have had the ethical principles in order to find the will to use that method. Hard to fight that way if you don't at least fairly well believe in the rightness of it.

If you look at almost any nationalist/ultranationalist movement---say the "Young Officers" in Egypt in the 1950's, or Syria in the 1940's (with the creation of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, which sought to establish "greater Syria"---basically large portions of Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine) these movements only choice was to engage in almost everything but direct military action. What eventually helped fell the SSNP was an ill-fated direct assault on authorities in Lebanon and Syria.

However, if you look at the case of Japan, direct military action was taken by the nationalist (actually "imperialist, "in the emperor's name") with the overthrowing of the Tokugawa Shogunate in the 1860's. But really this case highlights more than anything the power of a civilian army vs the power of a hereditary class that was often seen as "pacified by peace," and thus unable to act.

In any case, nationalist movements rarely can engage in any direct military action---and so every other means becomes an option.


--Andy

[firth4eva]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7669402/Times-Square-car-bomb-police-investigate-South-Park-link.html

Back on topic, New York car bomb was anti-SP?

[Phatscotty]

I do believe that he mellowed out in his later years..

The common image people have of Gandhi isn't totally off, but it is incomplete.

A friend of mine from South America was trying to make a similar case against Ghandi a few weeks ago. I had never really heard anyone say anything like that before, but that being the case is why I was listening. However, he could not provide any specific information for me to further look at.

[Woodruff]

I do believe that he mellowed out in his later years..

The common image people have of Gandhi isn't totally off, but it is incomplete.

A friend of mine from South America was trying to make a similar case against Ghandi a few weeks ago. I had never really heard anyone say anything like that before, but that being the case is why I was listening. However, he could not provide any specific information for me to further look at.

I think GabonX is simply referring to Gandhi's support of the British in the war, stating that the British should use all of their resources (including Indians). This simply ties in with Gandhi's desire at that point for the Indians to be considered British subjects (not sure if I'm using the right term there), rather than any bloodthirstiness on Gandhi's part.

[AAFitz]

I mean, f*ck all this nonsense about obama and guns and whatnot, this is actually a real topic.

It is, except its not censorship. Censorship is really the government deciding you cant say something. For a corporation or public company to decide simply not to play a particular show for any particular reason is just them exercising their freedom of speech.

And I doubt its the threats that they received that were the problem. I suspect it was more the bad publicity and possibility of boycotts, or the same, if someone followed up on the threats, and they did not remove it.

It was simply a good business decision. The risk of leaving it far outweigh the benefit of removing it.

If you want to purchase the show from them however, you are free to air it on your network.

Its really not even that big a deal when viewed practically.

What is interesting is that it was so passionately protested against, but had this episode included Jesus, say 20 or 30 years ago, with similar protest, and 40 or 50 years ago, would have had the same threats of violence to be sure. Now however, Christians as a whole are simply less passionate about defending their religion now, but in the past have done the same exact thing, as have many religions.

[thegreekdog]

So are threats of violence a viable reason not to show something? I was extremely disappointed that Comedy Central did not show the episode in its entirety.

[Snorri1234]

I mean, f*ck all this nonsense about obama and guns and whatnot, this is actually a real topic.

It is, except its not censorship. Censorship is really the government deciding you cant say something. For a corporation or public company to decide simply not to play a particular show for any particular reason is just them exercising their freedom of speech.

It's self-censorship. It's not that they aren't allowed to censor themselves, but I don't think they should have.

And I doubt its the threats that they received that were the problem. I suspect it was more the bad publicity and possibility of boycotts, or the same, if someone followed up on the threats, and they did not remove it.

Uh....bad publicity and boycotts are not things they would be concerned about. Or do you think there's a large muslim-following of South park?