feb 1
i agree with the essential point that assissi makes -- that indians are blacks in the eyes of whites. i have found this true indirectly: most americans do not think india is in asia and are surprised to hear that it is. "asia" = yellow people. a lot of americans think india is in the middle east, others think it is in africa.
also, i have noticed the difference in treatment light-skinned indians get (they are treated as though they were hispanics, with a small amount of respect) and dark-skinned indians get (treated with no respect, as blacks).
however, be that as it may, i dont agree with assissi's extrapolation that indians should therefore form alliances with other 'colored' people (btw, that is a horrible and abhorrent word, which means 'white' is normal, and all others lumped together are an aberration, 'colored'). no, indians are brown, indian, and we join the asians when it suits us. incidentally, east asian prejudice against indians is also well-known. the chinese in san francisco went so far as to declare indians a non-minority so that indians could not take advantage of minority quotas.
indians dont need to form any alliances and sing kumbaya with all the other oppressed peoples of the earth or any such liberal bullshit. indians also dont need to beg and plead to be treated as caucasian and white and aryan -- note that all this is based on the discredited aryan invasion fallacy.
indians are among the earliest humans, based on the migration of humans out of africa 50,000+ years ago. we are not white. although whites are actually mutations of humans who migrated westward from india to central asia and europe. just as yellows are also mutations of early humans who migrated eastwards from india.
so long as indians keep building up their economy, all this nonsense is immaterial. if indians have money, whites will kiss indian ass, no question about it. whites know money has no color.
====================
The Indian as "Black White" and as "Nigger"
By Francis C. Assisi on Indolink, Feb. 1, 2006
There is this essential contradiction in being a South Asian, or a person of
Indian origin, in America: on one hand the South Asian is perceived as being
black by the majority white population, and on the other the South Asian is
eager to be categorized alongside whites, as Caucasians.
Brown on the outside, "white" on the inside, South Asians are mostly
perceived in America as being too white to be black, and too black to be
white. But with the increase in post 9/11 attacks against South Asians, at
least some are being forced to come to grips with the myth that equates
Indo-Aryan with Caucasian and with being white.
But for a hundred years South Asians have been harassed, intimidated,
assaulted, humiliated, abused, and even killed because of what they
represent through their color, their religion, their language, and their
culture. And it continues to this day.
.....
Francis C. Assisi can be reached at indiaspora@gmail.com
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=051605113928
10 comments:
Unrelated to this post but a good editorial for a change - A Servile PM
It's Oscar season and the Chinese government has banned - Memoirs of a Geisha. I guess by doing this it has unwittingly given more publicity to this movie than it would ever have got.
Idiots.
Speaking of generalizations of
whites not liking blacks, to me
this seems like a myth. Wherever
I went in the US, I have only
received a lot of respect from
whites, both men and women. No
mistake about it. As well as some
of the American Chinese.
I cant say the same for the Chinese
who I worked with, but they were
not American chinese, they were
first generation recent immigrants
from China.
But notice something else on this
blog - how many women write here ?
Only two. Why ? Is it something
to do with the owner's attitude to
women ? Or the attitude of many of
the men who write here ?
Is there a lot of respect for women
on this blog ? Or is it heavily
male-oriented ?
I have noticed long religious
philosophical lectures on Arjuna
and Shivaji posted here with
great gusto, and they were written
by some guy. But a few lines of
praise from me for one guru were
shot down. Whereas the moderation
guidelines (3-point guideline)
never said I cant praise some
guru here.
And not a single guy has been
moderated on this blog. Only two
people were moderated - me and
the other lady who wrote here.
But praise is showered on would
be beauty queens for their waif-
like innocence, pouting lips,
long legs that go on for ever, and
very Indian looks, and swimsuit
calendars reference for the men
to see and relish.
So that tells me that this blog's
general orientation is male
oriented.
Guys here have mocked at me for
talking about guru and guru's
blessings. The blog owner never
protested.
So maybe such men will learn to
respect women the hard way - by
getting Sonia as Queen of India,
and being forced to bow down
before her and listening to her
lectures on television.
Sad.
@daisies..
LOLzzzzz...u sound like a frminist..I hate the word though.
The reason why very less women write here is "the content of the blog " not the "attitude".
Go and surf through net. You will find many women posting in the blogs related to "bollywood, fashion, p-secism etc".
where as this blog features more serious content..politics, philosophy,religion and everyone knows that Rajeev tells the bitter truth here.
Dont blame men for this...it is the normal female psyche that is reluctant towards these topics.....I hate to genaralise ..;)
Darkstorm,
My catfights with others irritates?
What is this blog about ?
Fighting, right ? Shadow Warrior.
Nizhal Yodhha once asked a question
to Gopal - "How much have you
fought to save Hinduism ?".
If I write to stop another blogger
from smearing a Hindu guru, you
think of it as an irritating
cat-fight ?
I am woman, so I am
expected not to fight ?
But Nizhal Yoddha's often bitter,
acerbic fighting is palatable for
you ? And your fights are palatable
for the whole blog ?
And your daily songs of "sickular"
are not sickening for anyone ?
Was I supposed to keep quiet when
this guru was repeatedly called a
"cultist" here ?
my fight was not vicious or
bitter, it is all only facts and
carefully chosen language so as
not to offend anyone.
You sat on the sidelines through
it all. Finally like a BIG HERO,
you come and advise us to have
peace. Which was totally not
required, because Kalyani and I
had already shaken hands with
each other and showed respect for
each other. Why do we need your
advice for peace ?
It is your assumption that women
dont come here because of the
content. My guess is they dont
come here because the tone has
often been too acerbic, and
language has often been very
unpalatable. Very few people can
stand it. Kalyani was stronger. I
cant stand it. I wrote here for
certain reasons, mostly the
horrifying smear I saw here, and
also to learn a few things and
share a few things along the way,
with some of the people here.
Anyway, the person who jeered at
whatever I said about guru, that
person wasnt you. He knows who he
is, and I'm not even interested
in saying anything more to him.
I didnt mean all that about you.
He goes around advising me what to
do with my blessings. Why doesnt
he do whatever he wants instead of
stopping me from whatever I was
writing on the blog ?
Dear Xmatrix,
I dont guess gender by pseudonym,
but the type of response and
language. As a linguist, I tend to
see that in general, men write
differently than women. I have not
seen your postings often, so possibly misjudged. Btw, guru
doesnt
teach me stupid stuff. I havent
made him my advisor on how to
brush my teeth or anything of the
kind. I went to him only for the
higher stuff.
And Darkstorm, dont imagine you can
win your battles by calling people
names as you keep doing. You have
called me names. That's not going
to help you.
If you truly want to win in India,
take and honest look at your
strengths and weaknesses, and see
how they can be used and managed,
instead of constantly calling
people names simply because their
views are different. Grow up.
Even two completely good people
can have very different views.
I dont come here for ego-gratification, I come to help. If
what I said was of use, take it.
If not, ignore it.
If you call me names, I lose
nothing, and you gain nothing.
virat0,
if you felt you were not
jeering, that is enough
explanation for me.
thank you. i have nothing
against you.
but definitely, I feel nizhal
yoddha is more critical of women
than men (inclduing himself)
get away a lot. he doesnt
moderate guys, and many have
surely needed to be moderated.
thus he is setting a tone of
"guys can get away with however
they respond. women, behave
yourselves..."
so would I feel like being on
his team ? No.
and No, i wouldnt be happy to
see Sonia as pm.
so people like nizhal yoddha, do
make sure you dont do things to
push people away from you,
leaving them with no choice but
to go to a Softer, courteous,
respectful person.
Darkstorm,
I read your comments. It is now
very clear to me that you dont
understand what any of those
fights was exactly about.
But Nizhal Yoddha must have
understood, because he is very
sharp. That's good enough for me.
I know he will think about
whatever I said.
By the way, I dont support anyone
blindly simply because he/she is
a Hindu. I wont even
listen to or agree with Rajeev
just because he is a Hindu not a
Christian. I will agree only if he
is right and talking sense and
doing sensible things, and oppose
him if he isnt. And I feel he wont
mind, because he stands to gain by
that.
I am realising that you expect
support you no matter what you
say, simply because you are hindu
and a non-secular.
I wouldnt mind explaining again
exactly what the fights were about,
but when it is clear you refuse to
understand what I am saying, I wont
try to explain anything again.
Darkstorm,
It is UNTURE that I have retracted many times.
I have retracted ONLY ONE statement so
far which wasnt worded correctly. And
that's because it was really a challenge
to refer to Kalyani without specifically
naming her, so as not to offend her.
That statement was "I feel sorry for those
who dont understand the value".
Other times, I have had to clarify (NOT
REWORD), because the reader's interpretation
was not what I meant.
You have misinterpreted me MANY times. Starting
with the statement few months back that the
blog is mainly opinion-oreinted not solution-
oriented. You took it to mean that I was saying
that "you just keep talking and provide no
solutions".
Your intrepretion was not what I meant. And
this has happened many times. You are the only
person who has misinterpreted me often.
Nizhal Yoddha reads a lot between the lines. So
he often ends up reading something non-existent.
It's his own imagination. Sometimes he may be
right, sometimes he may be wrong.
Communication depends on both the
writer and the reader. I try to word
my thoughts as well as possible,
(it's not always easy) but that
can never guarantee that the other person will
understand it the same way.
I think your and my English is very different,
that is why you get me wrong so often.
Or perhaps you have very fixed thoughts in your
mind, that block the inflow of fresh ideas and
viewpoints. This is why you often dont
understand what I am trying to communicate,
you say something else, and I have to clarify.
Anyway, I dont know why you reply to every post.
Today's post had no allegations. I merely brought
up the possibility that the blog has a male
orientation, on the basis of the posting of some
articles and non-moderation of
some comments.
That was for the moderator to reflect upon and look
into and make changes if that's what it is. Not for you.
You started slanging back. There was no need. And
then you expect me to say nothing. And finally
you accuse me of wild allegations.
If you arent winning arguments with women, it could
be because you are not thinking through things, and
just shooting back all the time, solely in order to
win, and get an upper hand.
I hope you will win some arguments with women. I
assure you it is possible. Because no one is ever
right all the time.
And when it comes to conceding defeat, what's wrong -
just concede defeat to the women. They are right
most of the time, because they dont argue unless
they really have to. :-)
"Though vanquished, he would argue
still."
--- From Oliver Goldsmith.
Perhaps you dont know the
difference between an allegation
and a theory. That is why
you replied to my post of today,
without any need to reply, and
are defending yourself and still
calling me names.
Darkstorm,
I already answered your questions
earlier. Perhaps you did not
understand my answer.
This time around, for me, silence
is golden.
Post a Comment