MAXIM-UM 'REGRET'? Protesters Don't Buy 'Apology' (ROLOL Alert!! Best Apology letter I have seen)

tolerance ^

[honeygrl]

"I thought white was a color but I guess not. "

I think technically white is lack of color..

[honeygrl]

According to my art teacher, "white" is a mixture of all other colors in the "color spectrum". According to the same art teacher, "black" is not a color at all. :)

Ahh I got it mixed up.. i thought it was the other way around.

[neither-nor]

You may want the interpretation of someone who's an Indian living in India- namely me. I see several statements here that, IMHO, seem to deserve an answer.

honeygrl--I guess people in India have no sense of humor...

Wrong. I find this story very funny. I find the Maxim apology funnier. I showed this story here in office ( Its 11:30 AM here as I write) and a lot of people found it absolutely hilarious. Some were pissed off, but the h@ll with them. So if someone can scan the story and the apology please freepmail it to me. I would love to read it. So honeygrl, SOME people in India have no sense of humour. but SOME people anywhere in the world have no sense of humour. Including the US

11B3-- Ghandi and his kin weren't exactly the peace loving folk that legend has them pegged as. For instance, Indira Ghandi was responsible for India's first nuclear test in 1974. How's that for peaceful.

Mohanddas Karamchand Gandhi, aka Mahatma Gandhi, had no relation to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi under whose government India went nuclear in 1974. To compare the two would be just about akin to saying that Audie Murphy was the father of Eddie Murphy

HHFi: Maxim was right: Gandhi was the perfect choice for an article about a human punching bag. His entire concept of "passive resistance" was to tell his followers to stand there and be mowed down until the enemy got embarrassed about killing so many of them and went away. Incredibly stupid. Gandhi was just lucky that he was dealing with the easily-embarrassed British. If he'd been telling Indians to lie down in front of Russian or Chinese tanks, there wouldn't be any Indians alive today.

Good point. But consider this: it also takes mucho b@lls to show passive resistance, to march unflinchingly into guns, bullets and staves. There's one incident, in 1930, that has been described by AMERICAN journalist Webb Miller

http://www.india-emb.org.eg/section%202/sect%202%20eng/COUNTRY.html, and then search on google).

Read it( its somewhere in the middle of the page) . And for more details, if you want, go to google. I personally don't like passive resistance. Many Indians don't. But I can admire people who pull it off. And Gandhi and his followes did. To those who deride passive resistance, know that India's freedom fighters used it as much a personal philosophy as political tool. Yes, the bottomline was that the British would be too 'decent' 'democratic' 'fair' to indulge in wholesale massacres (Though they did that as well. There is the Jallianwallah Bagh Massacre in which a British general ordered his Gorkha troops to open fire on an unarmed assembly. Hundreds were killed. In 1942 the British, fighting for survival againt Nazi Germany carried out the kind of wholesal repression that would make you throw up)

. Passive resistance was a weapon of political genius. Would it have worked against Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Hirohito's Japan? H@ll, no. But it was a weapon that a genius - Gandhi -employed successfully, brilliantly merging the time and conditions and circumstances. Through it we gained our independance.

Mr. Silverback ----Bet ya 99% of the population doesn't know old Mahatma advocated surrender to the Nazis, though they should be able to figure it out from his philosophy

Right. Most people probably do not. But to say that that they should have been able to figure it out from his philosopohy is, IMHO, wrong. Gandhi was absolutely, screaming wrong when he wrote to British asking them to surrender. But that does not detract from his stature as a leader and statesman.

Every great man gets it wrong sometime. Your President Abraham Lincoln fought a civil over slavery. I remember reading somewhere ( correct me if I'm wrong) that his position on the Negro race was'nt exactly blemish free ( this is the result of a hasty google check, but it seems to indicate that there was some controversy -

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1985/5/85.05.03.x.html)

So, how does one evaluate Lincoln? From where I'm standing, he was a great man. Gandhi was a great man as well, but he was not God, and even great human beings make errors.

Finally in evaluation, of Gandhi as a leader, consider this: When I was very young we Indians were taught at schools by bored teachers and by rote- that he was a great man, that he gave us our freedom, etc etc etc. When I became an adult, I thought..'blah. blah, blah'. We all learn to criticise our leaders and as cocky twenty somethings we think that we knew everything. So I 'learnt' to criticise Gandhi.

But as I grow older, and am given more repsonsibility in my job, my perspective has changed once again. Today I realise that I lead my teams through ( hopefully) a little bit of inspiration, but to a large extent because i have the tools of authority: I have the authority to hire and fire people to raise salaries, to cut bonuses etc.

I request Freepers who are reading this to extend this argument to your lives. What are the basic tools of power that allow you to lead people in your businesses and jobs?And can you still lead if you do not have those tools?

Sorry for the longwindedness, but here's my point: Around 1924 Gandhi gave up all political positions and became a 'private gentleman'. In other words, he walked away from the political party system. He now coudln't hire or fire anyone, he could'nt threaten anyone with ostracism, he could'nt make appointments, he couldn't place his people on committess...he had NO TOOLS of the leader. And yet, millions in my country followed him up to and beyond independance in 1947. </>

Think of it: Here's a man who can get almost single handedly get millions of people ABSOLUTELY united to reach an 'impossible' objective, even though he doesnt have any authority apart from his personal convictions? Freepers, how many of you can claim to have lead even small teams for DECADES without ANY of the usual management 'weapons'?

Personally, I have trouble leading my wife, as it is

But Gandhi did - and that's what IMHO, makes him the greatest leader of the 20th century, and probably the greatest ever. All other poliiticians and statesmen have relied on the tools of power to achieve their accomplishments. That does not make them less great. But NO statesman ever can claim to have done what he did IN THE WAY HE DID IT. How many of us can ? Can a US Senator do it? Can an American president? Essentially, the Gandhi, as a statesman and politicians, simply said 'Follow Me'- that's all- and millions did.

Yes Gandhi was criticised, Gandhi was wrong on many things, Gandhi messed up many times. But when I think of my own leadership frailty, and the frailty of all our leaders- Indian, American, and what have you, and THEN think of Gandhi's achievements and his leadership ability, I understand, dimly, the power of men such as Jesus Christ and Gautama Buddha.

Now, if anyone can mail me a copy of the Maxim article, I'd be much obliged.

[Kip Lange]

*de-lurk* I will send this to my best friend, mentioned earlier. He sounds...very very much like you. Still stuck a bit in idealism, but moving rapidly towards reality.

Read this man, folks, and think about the friend we have in India. *Think*. In reality, not in Utopia.

I tip my cap to you, Sir.

[nopardons]

The ONLY reason that Ghandi got the British to give yp, is because they were far too " civilized " , at that time, to go after him, as they had done, to any and all Indians set against them in the past. World " media " would have crucified them to boot.

Ghandi didn't get South Africa to knuckle under, a few decades prior to his somewhat different tactics in India.

[neither-nor]

Sorry for the late reply. I am moving in and out of meetings. It's almost 4 PM here. Thank you for your mail.

[neither-nor]

"The ONLY reason that Ghandi got the British to give yp, is because they were far too " civilized " , at that time, to go after him, as they had done, to any and all Indians set against them in the past. World " media " would have crucified them to boot. Ghandi didn't get South Africa to knuckle under, a few decades prior to his somewhat different tactics in India.

I disagree. There was a freedom struggle in India that lasted more than 90 years ( historians disagree on the time period but this is the most popular interpretation). I don't think that the Brits left because they were too 'civilized'. Tens of thousands of my countrymen died in the freedom struggle. Hundreds of thousands were jailed. India's freedom movement was of a scale never seen before.

IMHO The Brits left because of a combination of factors: - The freedom struggle by Indian patriots, the fact that World war II had enervated England financially and psychologically to the point that their 'stamina' for colonialism and the Raj had vanished, the Brits were a democratic people and realized the inevitable, and that some Brits genuinely wanted freedom for India. But to to say, as you do, that they left only because they were civilized is to ignore India's struggle for independance, and the sacrfice of my countrymen. It isn't fact.

The British did a lot for India- good and bad. I am the first to acknowledge that they brought technological progrees, modern science and modern education to India. They had fine officers who spent their lives in India. But we gave them a lot as well. One example: Indian Army soldiers from WWI till WW II were one of the most frequent winners of the Victoria Cross ( The American CMH equivalent). How much India's economy contributed to the upkeep of Britain, how many British families becamce millionaires because of Indian trade, how much of Indian wealth was stripped and taken the England will never exactly be estimated.

Whether Gandhi was successful in South Africa or not is open to debate. Perhaps he was not. But in my earlier post I have already mentioned that, in my opinion, if we HAD to be colonized, better the Brits that colonized us than the Dutch, Spanish, Germans or Japanese.

As I have said before passive resistance was a specific political tool in a specific environment, and your point of the world media crucifying the colonizer is an important part of this strategy. Just a thought: What would happen if the Palestinians start using this tactic against the Israelis, a democratic people, instead of resorting to acts of terrorism? Think about it- I would like your opinion on this one, maybe even have a debate on it

Finally, I believe that we would have fought and won against any colonizer, anyway. If the Germans had colonized us, it would have taken us perhaps a few decades more. Or it could have been faster that actually happened because state induced violence begets a backlash of violence. But we'll never know and this is just my opinion.

[BSunday]

Maxim should have told them "don't have a cow".

How would you spell the word that describes the sound of Coca-Cola spraying all over the place?? LMAO

[demosthenes the elder]

actually, MK Gandhi's philosophy of satyagraha does not really mean "non-violence" or "pure pacifism" the way most of his PR boys have mistranslated and misrepresented it. It means more along the lines of "the adamant willingness to endure great hardships/personal suffering in order to do what is right". It is a matter of sticking to your principles no matter the cost, of not dodging consequences of your actions, of bearing what must be borne.
Something Christians and Conservatives and all other people of character can understand and admire... and know that the right thing to do is not always the peaceful or passive thing to do.
Basically, it means guts and riteousness.

As to the whiners demanding some kind of abject apology from Maxim: Oh, do grow up, idolators. He was not some porcelain god in need of constant protection, I am sure Gandhi could take a joke at his own expense.

[demosthenes the elder]

depends.
in terms of wavelengths of visible light, "white" means the presence of ALL colors.
in terms of pigments, yes, you are correct.
Neithe black nor white is considered a color in graphics - they are considered "tones".

[demosthenes the elder]

that is a very well written piece.

[MississippiMan]

Well, it's pretty obvious what they don't like about the apology, and it has nothing to do with Gandhi. The magazine has done far worse now than insult Gandhi when they brought up Clinton and Kennedy.

I'm no Maxim fan but I do like their response.

MM

[Newbomb Turk]

My friend calls Maxim 3.2 porn. Kind of like the old 3.2 beer we drove to Kansas to drink when we were eighteen.

[neither-nor]

Thank you

[nopardons]

I did NOT claim that the Brits left becuase they were too civilized. I said that they did not fight back, as they once did, because they had become more civilized and the world media would have crucified them, had they done so. Against anyother nation, Ghandi's passive resistance would NOT have worked. That's a fact.

In a way, they faced, back then, the same sort of world opinion, as did America, England, etc. did, over the lefties propaganda aabout South Africa and Nelson Mandela, in the 1980s. So, England caved. It worked out well for India; disasterously , for South Africa. And, Ghandi lost...lost utterly there. He didn't understand South Africa and it wasn't his eliment, as India was.

Would passive resisatance work for the Palestinians ? You mean in getting them their yearning for AL Jews to be driven into the sea and taking over ALL of present day Isreal ? No; absolutely NOT ! Nothing, nothing whatsoever is going to get them that.

[neither-nor]

I did NOT claim that the Brits left becuase they were too civilized

I accept your point, though as I re-read your earlier post it seemed to me to be that way.

Against anyother nation, Ghandi's passive resistance would NOT have worked. That's a fact.

That is your opinion. It isn't a fact. But even so, and undeniably, what you say has a strong measure of the truth. But, as I said we'll never know because it didn't happen that another country had colonized India. But yes, being reasonably informed people we can make a good guesstimate as to where it wouldnt have worked. Again, as I said before, I believe it would'nt have worked against Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR, Hirohito's Japan. But then, passive resistance evolved partly as a specific response to a specific colonizer.( Some of us in India regard South Africa as Gandhi's political laboratory). Had there been a more brutal colonizer, perhaps a different kind of freedom struggle-more savage, violent- would have come to the fore in India? We'll never know

In a way, they faced, back then, the same sort of world opinion, as did America, England, etc. did, over the lefties propaganda aabout South Africa and Nelson Mandela, in the 1980s. So, England caved./

I know that South Africa and its surrounding African nations became a major playground for the Commies. I know that the lefties took the lead in mobilizing public opinion against South Africa, and also within South Africa. But the way I look at it, worldwide criticism of South Africa, its boycott, were good things because of their racist apartheid policies.

....South Africa. And, Ghandi lost...lost utterly there.

I don't have much of an idea about Gandhi in South Africa, except what I learnt in junior school. I am violently opposed to shooting from the hip, or scoring debating points. I will try and read up more on what happened there and then maybe get back to you. You could be right.

Would passive resisatance work for the Palestinians ? You mean in getting them their yearning for AL Jews to be driven into the sea and taking over ALL of present day Isreal ? No; absolutely NOT ! Nothing, nothing whatsoever is going to get them that.

No I meant it as a 'what if situation' in primarily getting an independant state, not in destroying Israel. Based on your point about the pressure of world opinion etc, ( which I agree with), my question was: Hypothetically, if the Palestinians dropped their terrorist/militant activities one fine day and decided to adopt passive resistance, what would happen, given your points aout pressure from the media, world opinion, etc? Would they be able to put more pressure on Israel, a democratic country, from external and internal sources?

Imagine a series of incidents such as this: a crowd of hundreds march peacefully on to a military post. Some Israeli official overreacts, opens fire. Imagine most Palestinians refusing to react violently, becoming passive resisters. Now imagine that such incidents keephappening over days, weeks, months years. Where will it go from there?

I'm interested because Islamic terrorists in my country have been on a killing spree in Kashmir and elsewhere over the past decade. So I often think-- what if they decide to adopt passive resistance? Would world opinion then turn very swiftly against India, instead of the more or less neutral state in which it is today? My answer for my country:Probably, perhaps likely

[PRND21]

Maxim is for sissies but it seems the editorial board has brass ones.

[neither-nor]

I am sure Gandhi could take a joke at his own expense

Yes he could. He was a wry, puckish man with a wry , puckish sense of humour. There is a recounted incident in which he was supposed to meet the King of England. The fashion at the time was a dress called 'Plus Fours', apparently a real dude combination with coat, trousers, spats, waistcoat etc.

Now Gandhi used to wear a loin cloth ( small cloth which covers just the privates) and a shawl because of his belief that poverty in India meant that many people had very little to wear. His statement on the meeting with the King:" The King is going to wear Plus Fours. I will be wearing Minus Fours!"

I think he would have laughed at the Maxim story and the apology, depsite the fact that many Indians seem to take it too seriously. A great man isn't cheapened just because someone cracks a joke at his expense. As a matter of fact,no one is.

[nopardons]

It is a pleasure to discuss these things with you. You know history, are logical, and aside from your speculation about the Pali problem and lack of knowledge of South African history ( which, instead of attempting to bluff through, as do many FREEPERS,unfortunately, when caught out on a topic they know little to nothing about, pretend to be " expert " on, you admit it. ), you've made some good points.

Passive resitance wouldn't, IMO, work for the Plasestinians. Muslims and the Palis in particular, want nothing more and nothing less, than to see Israel oblitterated and ALL Jews driven into the sea. I'm quoting them; those aren't my words, nor my interpretation of their words. Passive resitance isn't part of their nature, their upbringing, nor their culture. Their terroism/Infitadas, have by now, harmed far too many people in Israel' Jews, Christians, and Muslims, for Israelis to just forgive & forget. Thousands of Palis marching onto a military base, is more than just a cause for alarm. The anti-Israel/anti-Jew/anti-Zionists would have paryoxiums of delight, because it would allow them to scream about the killings. These people ignore /play down the deaths and mutilations caused by bomb wearing terrorists.

Would the world, in general, condemn Israel and force her to utterly give up Israel ? I doubt that would work. Israel isn't England and this isn't mid 20th century.

Even African blacks, today, yearn for the days of Apartheid. South Africa, under ANC rule,is a disaster. Without the deification of Mandela, the lefties' mass propaganda, and the West's heavy handed importunings for them to end Apartheid, South Africa WAS slowly getting rid of it. It would have seen an end, without the interfierence and the Commies wouldn't have taken over.

[L.N. Smithee]

Tolerance.org?? WTF kind of PC rag is that crap?

Tolerance.org is a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a fund-raising factory headed by Morris Dees, a lawyer whose civil suits against Ku Klux Klan groups and several Neo-Nazis groups garnered punitive awards that caused them to go into bankruptcy.

Currently featured on Tolerance.org: "Reports" about "SARS-related paranoia" causing discrimination against Asians "fifty years after racism and hysteria led to Japanese internment," and "SkinTalks," silk-screened plastic bandages with "pro-tolerance" slogans.

I kid you not. Get a load of this.