Or some lavÂish dish you nevÂer had a chance to taste?
What might your choice reveal about your race, regionÂal oriÂgins, or ecoÂnomÂic cirÂcumÂstances?
Artist Julie Green develÂoped a fasÂciÂnaÂtion with death row inmates’ final meals while teachÂing in OklaÂhoma, where the per capiÂta exeÂcuÂtion rate exceeds Texas’ and conÂdemned prisÂonÂers’ speÂcial menu requests are a matÂter of pubÂlic record:
Fried fish filÂlets with red cockÂtail sauce from Long John Silver’s
Large pepÂperÂoni pizÂza with sausage and extra mushÂrooms and a large grape soda.
The latÂter order, from April 29, 2014, was denied on the grounds that it would have exceedÂed the $15-per-cusÂtomer max. The prisÂonÂer who’d made the request skipped his last meal in protest.
One man got perÂmisÂsion for his mothÂer to preÂpare his last meal in the prison kitchen. AnothÂer was surÂprised with a birthÂday cake after prison staff learned he had nevÂer had one before.
Each meal Green paints is accomÂpaÂnied by a menu, the date, and the state in which it was served, but the prisÂonÂers and their crimes go unnamed. She has comÂmitÂted to proÂducÂing fifty plates a year until capÂiÂtal punÂishÂment is abolÂished.
Since the HarÂry PotÂter craze began, we’ve seen young adult ficÂtion gain masÂsive popÂuÂlarÂiÂty with adults, in ways some critÂics have lamentÂed as a trend that infanÂtilizes the buyÂing pubÂlic. (Some say the same about superÂhero films and adult fans of boy bands). Katie Couric idenÂtiÂfied the pheÂnomÂeÂnon as “the rise of so-called Peter Pan activÂiÂties,” throwÂing “adult sumÂmer camps and Lego leagues” in the mix. CritÂics of Peter Panism can add anothÂer trend to their batÂtery of examÂples: the rise of the adult colÂorÂing book. BusiÂness InsidÂerreportÂed in April that “in Britain, four out of the top 10 AmaÂzon bestÂsellers are colÂorÂing (or colourÂing, as the Brits insist) books for adults.” CurÂrentÂly, Amazon’s top 20 bestÂsellers for 2015 includes three adult colÂorÂing books. Among so many othÂer conÂsumer signs and porÂtents, adult colÂorÂing books may indeed herÂald a comÂing apocÂaÂlypse, at least for RusÂsell Brand, who wonÂders, “What has turned us into terÂriÂfied divs that want to live in childÂish stuÂpors?”
Well, whether “childÂish,” art therÂaÂpy or “Zen,” adult colÂorÂing books meet a need milÂlions of grown-ups have to soothe their janÂgled nerves, and it seems almost cruÂel to mock peoÂple so anxÂiÂety-ridÂden they’ve returned to kinderÂgarten remeÂdies. Then again, it’s worth notÂing, as SmithÂsonÂian did recentÂly, “the adult colÂorÂing conÂcept is not exactÂly new.”
It dates back to the 1960s, when “bookÂstores explodÂed” with colÂorÂing books geared excluÂsiveÂly toward adults. The difÂferÂence between then and now lies in the fact that those books were adult in conÂtent as well as form—“satirical and subÂverÂsive,” offerÂing “a mockÂing look at AmerÂiÂcan sociÂety.” The first of these, The ExecÂuÂtive ColÂorÂing Book, arrived in 1961, folÂlowed by The John Birch SociÂety ColÂorÂing Book and many simÂiÂlar titles “satÂiÂrizÂing conÂformism, John F. Kennedy and the SoviÂet Union,” among othÂer tarÂgets. And yet, “Unlike the adult colÂorÂing books flyÂing off the shelves today,” SmithÂsonÂian writes, “these books were not creÂatÂed with the intenÂtion to be colÂored in.”
Take the two pages from The ExecÂuÂtive ColÂorÂing Book above. The first, at the top, shows us our execÂuÂtive preparÂing for his day with the capÂtion “THIS IS MY SUIT. ColÂor it gray or I will lose my job.” Above, a line of idenÂtiÂcal execÂuÂtives boards a train. HamÂmerÂing home the point, we’re told “THIS IS MY TRAIN. It takes me to my office every day. You meet lots of interÂestÂing peoÂple on the train. ColÂor them all gray.” A notable excepÂtion to these dreaÂry instrucÂtions, below, tells us “THIS IS MY PILL. It is round. It is pink. It makes me not care. Watch me take my round, pink pill… and not care.” The conÂtents of the pill may have changed, but the medÂicatÂed workÂer bee is still very much with us, though the gray flanÂnel suit is a thing of the past.
Rather than givÂing its tarÂget audiÂence a chance to become kids again, The ExecÂuÂtive ColÂorÂing Book pokes fun at the ways in which pamÂpered execÂuÂtives of the Mad Men-era could themÂselves be shalÂlow manÂchilÂdren. One page, below, shows the executive’s secÂreÂtary with the capÂtion “THIS IS MY SECRETARY. I hate her. She is mean. I used to have a soft, round lady. But my wife called her papa.” AnothÂer (botÂtom), remÂiÂnisÂcent of the busiÂness card scene in AmerÂiÂcan PsyÂcho, shows us the executive’s imporÂtant phone: “THIS IS MY TELEPHONE. It has five butÂtons. Count them. One, two, three, four, five. Five butÂtons. How many butÂtons does your teleÂphone have? Mine has five.”
From its faux-leather covÂer to its final page of busiÂness-speak gibÂberÂish, the whole thing is a masÂterÂfulÂly simÂple, self-conÂtained piece of conÂcepÂtuÂal art. The next pubÂliÂcaÂtion by the same authors, The John Birch ColÂorÂing Book, made its intenÂtions a litÂtle more obviÂous. A SunÂday HerÂald review quotes from its introÂducÂtion: “This book is respectÂfulÂly dedÂiÂcatÂed to Dwight D. EisenÂhowÂer and many othÂer loyÂal AmerÂiÂcans who have been maligned by extremÂist groups.” One capÂtion reads “This is our eagle. We cut off his left wing. Now he is an all AmerÂiÂcan eagle. But he flies only in cirÂcles.” The “Birchers will have to learn to smile,” writes the reviewÂer, as the book “spare[s] not their feelÂings.” Not likeÂly. Rather than sellÂing relaxÂation, the adult colÂorÂing books of the 60s were “engaged,” wrote MilÂton BrackÂer in a 1962 New York Times review, “in politÂiÂcal warÂfare.”
ProÂducÂer David MerÂrick pulled the plug on a 1966 musiÂcal adapÂtaÂtion of BreakÂfast at Tiffany’s starÂring Mary Tyler Moore long before its offiÂcial openÂing night, thus sparÂing the draÂma critÂics and the pubÂlic “an excruÂciÂatÂingÂly borÂing evening.”
And then there is 1970’s Big Time Buck White, activist Oscar Brown, Jr.’s adapÂtaÂtion of Joseph Dolan Tuotti’s play. It feaÂtured MuhamÂmad Ali—temÂporarÂiÂly benched from boxÂing for draft evasion—in the titÂuÂlar role of a milÂiÂtant lecÂturÂer, delivÂerÂing a Black PowÂer mesÂsage to a charÂacÂter named Whitey.
The priÂmarÂiÂly white BroadÂway-going audiÂence that embraced the counÂterÂculÂturÂal “TribÂal Love-Rock MusiÂcal” Hairtwo years earÂliÂer withÂheld its love. In a colÂorÂblind world, we might be able to chalk that up to the champ’s sub-par singing chops or some clunky lyrics, but it would be a misÂtake to turn a blind eye to the politÂiÂcal cliÂmate.
(Eight years latÂer, Ain’t MisÂbeÂhavin’, a tribÂute to Fats Waller and the Harlem RenaisÂsance was a bonafide hit.)
Big Time Buck White ran for just sevÂen perÂforÂmances, postÂing its closÂing notice well in advance of its JanÂuÂary 18th appearÂance on the Ed SulÂliÂvan Show, above.
These days, the proÂducÂers would probÂaÂbly scramÂble to find a replaceÂment, but SulÂliÂvan, a staunch supÂportÂer of CivÂil Rights, honÂored the bookÂing, comÂmandÂing his stuÂdio audiÂence to give the cosÂtumed playÂers “a fine recepÂtion.”
AfterÂward, the champ thanked SulÂliÂvan for invitÂing him and “the group” so that viewÂers who didn’t get a chance to could see “what type of play i was parÂticÂiÂpatÂing in.”
A bit of trivÂia. PlayÂbill credÂits actor DonÂald SutherÂland, in the role of Black Man. He may be a movie star, but he’s someÂthing of a BroadÂway flop himÂself, his only othÂer credÂit that of HumÂbert HumÂbert in 1980’s LoliÂta, PeoÂple Magazine’s Bomb of the Year.
Above is anothÂer scene from the musiÂcal, shared by Ali’s admirÂer, Mike Tyson.
In ostenÂsiÂbly libÂerÂal democÂraÂcies in the West, attiÂtudes towards free speech vary wideÂly givÂen difÂferÂent hisÂtorÂiÂcal conÂtexts, and can shift draÂmatÂiÂcalÂly over time. We’re livÂing in the midst of a genÂerÂaÂtional shift on the issue in the U.S.; a recent Pew surÂvey found that 40 perÂcent of millennials—18–34 year olds—favor govÂernÂment bans on offenÂsive speech. The usuÂal caveats apply when readÂing this data; New York magazine’s SciÂence of Us blog breaks down the demoÂgraphÂics and points out probÂlems with defÂiÂnÂiÂtions, parÂticÂuÂlarÂly with that of the word “offenÂsive.” They write, “plenÂty of folks freak out about anti-cop senÂtiÂments but are fine with racialÂly loaded language—or insert your own examÂples.” As comÂmenÂtaÂtors note almost daiÂly, varÂiÂous free speech advoÂcates show all manÂner of parÂtialÂiÂty when it comes to whose speech they choose to defend and whose they, unwitÂtingÂly perÂhaps, supÂpress.
EuroÂpean counÂtries, of course, already have all sorts of laws that curb offenÂsive speech and impose harsh penalÂties, from large fines to jail time. Those laws are extendÂing to the interÂnet as well, a speech domain long cenÂsored by ChiÂnese authorÂiÂties.
Whether EuroÂpean meaÂsures against racist and xenoÂphoÂbic speech actuÂalÂly lessen racism and xenoÂphoÂbia is an open quesÂtion, as is the probÂlem of excepÂtions to the laws that seem to allow cerÂtain kinds of prejÂuÂdices as they strongÂly cenÂsor othÂers. Much more extreme examÂples of the supÂpresÂsion of free speech have recentÂly come to light under autoÂcratÂic regimes in the MidÂdle East. In SyrÂia, softÂware develÂopÂer and free speech advoÂcate BasÂsel KhartaÂbil has been held in prison since 2012 for his activism. In SauÂdi AraÂbia, artist, poet, and PalesÂtinÂian refugee Ashraf Fayadh has been senÂtenced to death for “renouncÂing Islam.”
We could add to all of these examÂples hunÂdreds of othÂers, from all over the world, but in addiÂtion to the staÂtisÂtics and the disÂturbÂing indiÂvidÂual casÂes, it is worth askÂing broadÂer, more philoÂsophÂiÂcal quesÂtions about free speech as we draw our own conÂcluÂsions about the issues. What exactÂly do we mean by “free speech”? Should all speech be proÂtectÂed, even that meant to libel indiÂvidÂuÂals or whole groups or to delibÂerÂateÂly incite vioÂlence? Should we tolÂerÂate a pubÂlic disÂcourse made up of lies, misÂinÂforÂmaÂtion, prejÂuÂdiÂcial invecÂtive, and perÂsonÂal attacks? Should citÂiÂzens and the press have the right to quesÂtion offiÂcial govÂernÂment narÂraÂtives and to demand transÂparenÂcy?
To help us think through these politÂiÂcalÂly and emoÂtionÂalÂly fraught disÂcusÂsions, we could lisÂten to Free Speech Bites, a podÂcast sponÂsored by the Index on CenÂsorÂship and hostÂed by freeÂlance philosoÂpher Nigel WarÂburÂton, who also hosts the popÂuÂlar podÂcast PhiÂlosÂoÂphy Bites. The forÂmat is idenÂtiÂcal to that long-standÂing show, but instead of short conÂverÂsaÂtions with philosoÂphers, WarÂburÂton has brief, liveÂly disÂcusÂsions with free speech advoÂcates, includÂing authors, artists, politiÂcians, jourÂnalÂists, comeÂdiÂans, carÂtoonÂists, and acaÂdÂeÂmics. In the episode above, WarÂburÂton talks with DJ TayÂlor, biogÂraÂphÂer of the man conÂsidÂered almost a saint of free speech, George Orwell.
Of his subÂject, TayÂlor remarks, “I think it’s true to say that most of Orwell’s proÂfesÂsionÂal life, large amounts of the things that he wrote, are to do with the supÂpresÂsion of the indiÂvidÂual voice.” At the same time, he points out that Orwell’s “view of free speech is by no means clear cut.” The “whole free speech issue became much more delÂiÂcateÂly shadÂed than it would othÂerÂwise have been” durÂing the extraÂorÂdiÂnary times of the SpanÂish CivÂil War and World War II. TayÂlor refers to the “clasÂsic libÂerÂal dilemÂma: how far do we tolÂerÂate someÂthing that, if tolÂerÂatÂed, will cease to tolÂerÂate us…. If you are livÂing in a democÂraÂcy and somebody’s putting out fasÂcist pamÂphlets encourÂagÂing the end of that democÂraÂcy, how much rope do you give them?”
In anothÂer episode, Irshad Manji—feminist, self-described “MusÂlim refusenik,” and author of The TrouÂble with Islam Today—talks free speech and reliÂgion, and offers a very difÂferÂent perÂspecÂtive than what we’re used to hearÂing reportÂed from IslamÂic thinkers. When WarÂburÂton says that Islam and free expresÂsion sound “like two incomÂpatÂiÂble things,” ManÂji counÂters that as a “perÂson of faith” she believes “free expresÂsion is as much a reliÂgious obligÂaÂtion as it is a human right.” In her estiÂmaÂtion, “no human being can legitÂiÂmateÂly behave as if he or she owns a monopÂoly on truth.” AnyÂthing less than a sociÂety that tolÂerÂates civÂil disÂagreeÂment, she says, means that “we’re playÂing God with one anothÂer.” In her reliÂgious perÂspecÂtive, “devotÂing yourÂself to one god means that you must defend human libÂerÂty.” ManÂji sounds much more like EnlightÂenÂment ChrisÂtÂian reformÂers like John Locke than she does many interÂpreters of Islam, and she is well aware of the unpopÂuÂlarÂiÂty of her point of view in much of the IslamÂic world.
AddressÂing the quesÂtion of why free speech matÂters, broadÂcastÂer and writer Jonathan Dimbleby—former chair of the Index on Censorship—inaugurated the podÂcast in 2012 with a more clasÂsiÂcalÂly philoÂsophÂiÂcal disÂcusÂsion of John StuÂart Mill’s On LibÂerÂty and the libÂerÂal arguÂment against cenÂsorÂship Mill and othÂers articÂuÂlatÂed. For DimÂbleÂby, “freeÂdom of expresÂsion [is] not only a right but a definÂing charÂacÂterÂisÂtic of what it means to be a civÂiÂlized indiÂvidÂual.” It’s a view he holds “very strongÂly,” but he admits that the valid excepÂtions to the rule are “where the difÂfiÂcult terÂriÂtoÂry starts.” DimÂbleÂby points to “very obviÂous cirÂcumÂstances when you don’t have freeÂdom of expresÂsion and should not have freeÂdom of expresÂsion.” One of the excepÂtions involves “laws that say that if you express yourÂself freely, you are directÂly putting someÂone else’s life at risk.” This is not as clear-cut as it seems. The “danÂgerÂous terÂriÂtoÂry,” he argues, begins with cirÂcumÂscribÂing lanÂguage that incites anger or offense in othÂers. We are back to the quesÂtion of offense, and it is not a uncomÂpliÂcatÂed one. Although activists very often need to be uncivÂil to be heard at all, there’s also a necÂesÂsary place for pubÂlic disÂcusÂsions that are as thoughtÂful and careÂful as we can manÂage. And for that reaÂson, I’m grateÂful for the interÂvenÂtion of Free Speech Bites and the interÂnaÂtionÂal variÂety of views it repÂreÂsents.
What kind of deluÂsionÂal self-aggranÂdizÂer, called to tesÂtiÂfy before a UnitÂed States SenÂate SubÂcomÂmitÂtee, uses it as an opporÂtuÂniÂty to quote the lyrics of a song he’s writÂten… in their entireÂty!?
Only children’s teleÂviÂsion host Fred Rogers could pull such a stunt and emerge unscathed, nay, even more beloved, as he does above in docÂuÂmenÂtary footage from 1969.
NewÂly electÂed PresÂiÂdent Richard Nixon opposed pubÂlic teleÂviÂsion, believÂing that its libÂerÂal bent could only underÂmine his adminÂisÂtraÂtion. DeterÂmined to strike first, he proÂposed cuts equal to half its $20 milÂlion annuÂal operÂatÂing budÂget, a meaÂsure that would have seriÂousÂly hobÂbled the fledgÂling instiÂtuÂtion.
Mr. Rogers appeared before the ComÂmitÂtee armed with a “philoÂsophÂiÂcal stateÂment” that he refrained from readÂing aloud, not wishÂing to monopÂoÂlize ten minÂutes of the Committee’s time. Instead, he sought PasÂtore’s promise that he would give it a close read latÂer, speakÂing so slowÂly and with such litÂtle outÂward guile, that the tough nut SenÂaÂtor was moved to crack, “Would it make you hapÂpy if you did read it?”
Rather than takÂing the bait, Rogers touched on the ways his show’s budÂget had grown thanks to the pubÂlic broadÂcastÂing modÂel. He also hipped PasÂtore to the qualÂiÂtaÂtive difÂferÂence between freÂnetÂic kidÂdie carÂtoons and the vastÂly more thoughtÂful and emoÂtionÂalÂly healthy conÂtent of proÂgramÂming such as his. Mr. Roger’s NeighÂborÂhood was a place where such topÂics as hairÂcuts, sibÂling relaÂtionÂships, and angry feelÂings could be disÂcussed in depth.
Rogers’ emoÂtionÂal intelÂliÂgence seems to hypÂnoÂtize PasÂtore, whose chalÂlengÂing front was soon dropped in favor of a more respectÂful line of quesÂtionÂing. By the end of Rogers’ heartÂfelt, non-musiÂcal renÂdiÂtion of What Do You Do… (it’s much pepÂpiÂer in the origÂiÂnal), PasÂtore has gooseÂbumps, and the CorÂpoÂraÂtion for PubÂlic BroadÂcastÂing has its 2 mil’ back in the bag.
The GandÂhi of hisÂtoÂry doesn’t line up with the GandÂhi of legÂend, just as the beatÂiÂfied MothÂer TereÂsa presents a very difÂferÂent picÂture in cerÂtain astute critÂics’ estiÂmaÂtion. But as with most saints, ancient and modÂern, peoÂple tend to ignore Gandhi’s many conÂtraÂdicÂtions and trouÂblingÂly racist and casteist views. He comes to us more as myth and marÂtyr than deeply flawed human indiÂvidÂual. An indisÂpensÂable part of the mythÂmakÂing, Richard Attenborough’s 1982 biopic, GandÂhi, may be “over-sanÂiÂtized,” as The Guardian writes, but Ben Kingsley’s perÂforÂmance as the anti-coloÂnial leader is genÂuineÂly “subÂlime” in his evoÂcaÂtion of Gandhi’s “intenÂsiÂty… wit and even the disÂtincÂtive, deterÂmined walk.” It’s these perÂsonÂal qualities—and of course Gandhi’s defeat of the largest empire on the planÂet with nonÂviÂoÂlent action and a spirÂiÂtuÂal phiÂlosÂoÂphy—that conÂtinÂue to inspire moveÂments for jusÂtice and civÂil rights.
We see a litÂtle of that deterÂmined walk in the short newsÂreel interÂview above, the very first “talkÂing picÂture” made of GandÂhi, and we also hear his intenÂsiÂty and wit, though much subÂdued by his physÂiÂcal frailty after years of fastÂing. TakÂen in 1947 by Fox MoviÂetone News, the film marks a pivÂotal periÂod in the IndiÂan leader’s life. Very shortÂly after this ParÂliaÂment passed the IndiÂan IndeÂpenÂdence Act. That year also marked the start of a bloody new strugÂgle, instiÂgatÂed by anothÂer coloÂnial interÂvenÂtion, as the British parÂtiÂtioned India into two warÂring counÂtries, an act so poignantÂly draÂmaÂtized in Salmon Rushdie’s Midnight’s ChilÂdren.
This year of turÂmoil was also Gandhi’s last; he was assasÂsiÂnatÂed in 1948 by a HinÂdu nationÂalÂist who accused him of sidÂing with PakÂistan. In the interÂview, we hear what we might think of as some of Gandhi’s final pubÂlic proÂnounceÂments on such subÂjects as child marÂriage, proÂhiÂbiÂtion, his deeply held conÂvicÂtions about an authenÂtic IndiÂan culÂturÂal idenÂtiÂty, and the lengths that he would go for his country’s indeÂpenÂdence. At the end of the short interÂview, the AmerÂiÂcan reporter asks GandÂhi, preÂscientÂly, “would you be preÂpared to die in the cause of India’s IndeÂpenÂdence?” to which GandÂhi replies, “this is a bad quesÂtion.”
A rousÂing senÂtiÂment, and one rarely expressed by those runÂning for the nation’s highÂest office.
Once a canÂdiÂdate has been safeÂly electÂed, he may feel comÂfortÂable betrayÂing a deepÂer affinÂiÂty, or cedÂing to the tastes of an arts-inclined First Lady. Sanders isn’t waitÂing, pledgÂing in the video above, that he will be an Arts PresÂiÂdent.
He recordÂed a 1987 folk album with the help of 30 VerÂmont musiÂcians, stoutÂly proÂnouncÂing the lyrics to “This Land is Your Land” and “Where Have All the FlowÂers Gone” a la Rex HarÂriÂson.
As Sanders fans wait to see whether Fairey will perÂform a simÂiÂlar serÂvice for his 2016 pick, StenÂcils for Bernie is takÂing up the slack with downÂloadÂable images for the DIY-inclined.
I preÂsume that it’s only a matÂter of time before some young aniÂmaÂtor puts him or herÂself at Sanders’ disÂposÂal, though I kind of hope not. The candidate’s short video is reasÂsurÂingÂly devoid of the snapÂpy visuÂals that have become a staÂple of the form, thanks to such popÂuÂlar series as Crash Course, CGP Grey, The School of Life, and TED Ed.
Ayun HalÂlÂiÂday is an author, illusÂtraÂtor, and Chief PriÂmaÂtolÂoÂgist of the East VilÂlage Inky zine. Her play, FawnÂbook, opens in New York City latÂer this month. FolÂlow her @AyunHalliday
Some of the most rigÂorÂous moral thinkers of the past cenÂtuÂry have spent time on the wrong side of quesÂtions they deemed of vital imporÂtance. MohanÂdas GandÂhi, for examÂple, at first remained loyÂal to the British, manÂiÂfestÂing many of the vicious prejÂuÂdices of the Empire against Black South Africans and lobÂbyÂing for IndiÂans to serve in the war against the Zulu. Maya Jasanoff in New RepubÂlic describes GandÂhi durÂing this periÂod of his life as a “crank.” At the same time, he develÂoped his phiÂlosÂoÂphy of non-vioÂlent resisÂtance, or satyaÂgraÂha, in South Africa as an IndiÂan sufÂferÂing the injusÂtices inflictÂed upon his counÂtryÂmen by both the Boers and the British.
Gandhi’s someÂtime conÂtraÂdicÂtoÂry stances may be in part underÂstood by his rather arisÂtoÂcratÂic herÂitage and by the warm welÂcome he first received in LonÂdon when he left his famÂiÂly, his caste, and his wife and child in India to attend law school in 1888. And yet it is in LonÂdon that he first began to change his views, becomÂing a staunch vegÂeÂtarÂiÂan and encounÂterÂing theosÂoÂphy, ChrisÂtianÂiÂty, and many of the conÂtemÂpoÂrary writÂers who would shift his perÂspecÂtive over time. GandÂhi received a very difÂferÂent recepÂtion in EngÂland when he returned in 1931, the de facÂto leader of a burÂgeonÂing revÂoÂluÂtionÂary moveÂment in India whose examÂple was so imporÂtant to both the South African and U.S. civÂil rights moveÂments of sucÂceedÂing decades.
One of the writÂers who most deeply guidÂed Gandhi’s politÂiÂcal, spirÂiÂtuÂal, and philoÂsophÂiÂcal evoÂluÂtion, Leo TolÂstoy, expeÂriÂenced his own draÂmatÂic transÂforÂmaÂtion, from landÂed arisÂtoÂcrat to social radÂiÂcal, and also renounced propÂerÂty and posiÂtion to advoÂcate strenÂuÂousÂly for social equalÂiÂty. GandÂhi eagerÂly read Tolstoy’s The KingÂdom of God is WithÂin You, the novelist’s stateÂment of ChrisÂtÂian anarÂchism. The book, GandÂhi wrote in his autoÂbiÂogÂraÂphy, “left an abidÂing impresÂsion on me.” After furÂther study of Tolstoy’s reliÂgious writÂing, he “began to realÂize more and more the infiÂnite posÂsiÂbilÂiÂties of uniÂverÂsal love.”
It was in EngÂland, not India, where GandÂhi first read “A LetÂter to a HinÂdu,” Tolstoy’s 1908 reply to a note from IndiÂan revÂoÂluÂtionÂary TarakÂnath Das on the quesÂtion of IndiÂan indeÂpenÂdence. TolÂstoy divides his lengthy, thoughtÂful “LetÂter” into short chapÂters, each of which begins with a quoÂtaÂtion from the Vedas. “Indeed,” writes Maria PopoÂva, the misÂsive “puts in glarÂing perÂspecÂtive the nuanceÂless and hasty op-eds of our time.” It so affectÂed GandÂhi that, in 1909, he wrote to TolÂstoy, thus beginÂning a corÂreÂsponÂdence between the two that lastÂed through the folÂlowÂing year. “I take the libÂerÂty of invitÂing your attenÂtion to what has been going on in the TransÂvaal for nearÂly three years,” begins Gandhi’s first letÂter, someÂwhat abruptÂly, “There is in that Colony a British IndiÂan popÂuÂlaÂtion of nearÂly 13,000. These IndiÂans have, for sevÂerÂal years, labored under varÂiÂous legal disÂabilÂiÂties.”
The prejÂuÂdice against colÂor and in some respects against Asians is intense in that Colony….The cliÂmax was reached three years ago, with a law that many othÂers and I conÂsidÂered to be degradÂing and calÂcuÂlatÂed to unman those to whom it was applicÂaÂble. I felt that subÂmisÂsion to a law of this nature was inconÂsisÂtent with the spirÂit of true reliÂgion. Some of my friends and I were and still are firm believÂers in the docÂtrine of nonÂreÂsisÂtance to evil. I had the privÂiÂlege of studyÂing your writÂings also, which left a deep impresÂsion on my mind.
GandÂhi refers to a law forcÂing the IndiÂan popÂuÂlaÂtion in South Africa to regÂisÂter with the authorÂiÂties. He goes on to inquire about the authenÂticÂiÂty of the “LetÂter” and asks perÂmisÂsion to transÂlate it, with payÂment, and to omit a negÂaÂtive refÂerÂence to reinÂcarÂnaÂtion that offendÂed him. TolÂstoy respondÂed a few months latÂer, in 1910, allowÂing the transÂlaÂtion free of charge, and allowÂing the omisÂsion, with the qualÂiÂfiÂcaÂtion that he believed “faith in re-birth will nevÂer restrain mankind as much as faith in the immorÂtalÂiÂty of the soul and in divine truth in love.” OverÂall, howÂevÂer, he expressÂes solÂiÂdarÂiÂty, greetÂing GandÂhi “fraÂterÂnalÂly” and writÂing,
God help our dear brothÂers and co-workÂers in the TransÂvaal! Among us, too, this fight between genÂtleÂness and bruÂtalÂiÂty, between humilÂiÂty and love and pride and vioÂlence, makes itself ever more strongÂly felt, espeÂcialÂly in a sharp colÂliÂsion between reliÂgious duty and the State laws, expressed by refusals to perÂform milÂiÂtary serÂvice.
The two conÂtinÂued to write to each othÂer, GandÂhi sendÂing TolÂstoy a copy of his IndiÂan Home Rule and the transÂlatÂed “LetÂter,” and TolÂstoy expoundÂing at length on the errors—and what he saw as the supeÂriÂor characteristics—of ChrisÂtÂian docÂtrine. You can read their full corÂreÂsponÂdence here, along with Tolstoy’s “LetÂter to a HinÂdu” and Gandhi’s introÂducÂtion to his ediÂtion. Despite their reliÂgious difÂferÂences, the exchange furÂther galÂvaÂnized GandÂhi’s pasÂsive resisÂtance moveÂment, and in 1910, he foundÂed a comÂmuÂniÂty called “TolÂstoy Farm” near JohanÂnesÂburg.
GandÂhi’s views on African indeÂpenÂdence would change, and NelÂson ManÂdela latÂer adoptÂed GandÂhi and the IndiÂan indeÂpenÂdence moveÂment as a stanÂdard for the anti-apartheid moveÂment. We’re well aware, of course, of GandÂhi’s influÂence on MarÂtin Luther King, Jr. For his part, GandÂhi wrote glowÂingÂly of TolÂstoy, and the modÂel the novÂelÂist proÂvidÂed for his own anti-coloÂnial camÂpaign. In a speech 18 years latÂer, he said, “When I went to EngÂland, I was a votary of vioÂlence, I had faith in it and none in nonÂviÂoÂlence.” After readÂing TolÂstoy, “that lack of faith in nonÂviÂoÂlence vanished…Tolstoy was the very embodÂiÂment of truth in this age. He strove uncomÂproÂmisÂingÂly to folÂlow truth as he saw it, makÂing no attempt to conÂceal or dilute what he believed to be the truth. He statÂed what he felt to be the truth withÂout carÂing whether it would hurt or please the peoÂple or whether it would be welÂcome to the mighty emperÂor. TolÂstoy was a great advoÂcate of nonÂviÂoÂlence in his age.”
We're hoping to rely on loyal readers, rather than erratic ads. Please click the Donate button and support Open Culture. You can use Paypal, Venmo, Patreon, even Crypto! We thank you!
Open Culture scours the web for the best educational media. We find the free courses and audio books you need, the language lessons & educational videos you want, and plenty of enlightenment in between.
