Wednesday, February 01, 2006

indians as blacks

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

33 comments:

Kaunteya said...

Unrelated to this post but a good editorial for a change - A Servile PM

KapiDhwaja said...

Hey Rajeev. This might interest you. Got this from Bharat-Rakshak.

There are a lot of links inside. Some require subscription. So if you find anything interesting, you may post it back here, for the benefit of us readers.

Everything you need to know about the new Superpower: India

RAVI_KRISHNA said...

Rajiv,

I think these kind of postings in your blog takes away the seriousness of your postings. I simply don't agree with sweeping generalizations like whites treat light-skinned indians with more respect than dark skinned. On what
basis are you saying that?

Kaunteya said...

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.

daisies said...

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.

xmatrix said...

Daisy said >>>>
how many women write here ?
Only two. <<<<<

May be the same guru taught you how to recognize the gender of the blogger by looking at their pseudonym?

surya said...

@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 ..;)

virat0 said...

Daisies, the blog owner deleted all the obscene references to 'your' guru. You say that is because it was posted by a lady. Now we won't believe the poster was a lady untill he/she chooses to say so.

You could have cursed to bow to one's mother instead of that virus. Anyway thats your choice. Don't look to the world in the name of your guru, the world is your guru when it is present. 'Sympathy', 'sad' etc are not the breath that flows freely.

ANyway, let people choose words while counter acttacking, ' same guru ' as posted by xmatrix is offensive. Let us not reduce our reverence.

virat0 said...

the world is your guru
Oops, I meant to write the opposite, the guru is the world

virat0 said...

According to Mazumder, South Asians invariably see themselves as "Aryan" and, therefore, as "Caucasian" and "white".

The above is from the article, and is true for secular south asians. The others give a damn to it.

virat0 said...

WHile some, including myself can spit on such aryan categorizations, I think it could be just that, ie spitting on such stuff, irrespective of economy. Sometimes we will be too insignificant, so none cares what we spit in our rooms, non-secular people could care less about spitting, for there is work to do....

DarkStorm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
virat0 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DarkStorm said...

Daisies, even i have been moderated here before. look for posts around 6-8 months ago.. and you would see lot of activity. Many a troll have died here. And even your friend phoney toney whom you supported when he ridicules us as idolworshippers and calls Hinduism a false religion. Also that troller used to post anonymously abusing Hindus( you can make out from the language). Wow.. liberal and secular indeed, arent you.

and by the way.. Sonia as the Queen of India (sadly few people literaly bow down to her.. alas ).. Seems like you have reduced yourself to the level of those sick liberals without an ounce of grey matter. Just because you are a lady, nobody seems to have responded strongly, and i would also refrain from doing so. And who has made fun of you for posting about Gurus. Its your catfights with others that irritates.

Yeah.. go to some blog written by females who talk about SouthAsianitis, fashion, britney spears latest outfits and hairstyles, pseudo-secularism, olive branches, doves (and dove-sh*t), liberal progressive values. Then surely if you find that they speak facts and talk reasonably, surely go ahead and flame us all here.

Remember... a liberal is a person whose interests are not at stake at the moment.

daisies said...

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 said...

If it is about me, I thought I had used one of the words that you mention, then I am sure that I didn't jeer at you. I was quite respectful and liked reading your posts[ Except the Soniaji stuff - See I also thought Kalyani had wrong priority when he/she(?) posted some webpage here ] . I didn't know that you are taking my posts this way. I could clarify one point that you didn't like, if you dodn't accept my explanation then I could apologize.[ Not on the soniaji stuff]. Woun't respond to your general posts here the way I am doing now, that should make it good.





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 ?

daisies said...

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 said...

daisies.. what are you dreaming.. you in fact insulted me once by supporting phoney toney.. and now you accuse me of calling you names !!!! Where .. When.. i m confused really..

Now dont say there was no fight between you and Kalyani over Art of Living foundation. Now dont say you never supported phoney Devilist/Satanist.

Well anyway,, forget it.. nobody is anti-girls here. Really..

Why there are less gals posting here is not because of discussions on models, but because of the very nature of this blog. Its more of political and technology oriented in nature. Not to say girls lag behind here , but i mean that the numbers are lower.

DarkStorm said...

>> If I write to stop another blogger
from smearing a Hindu guru, you
think of it as an irritating
cat-fight ?

=======

Arent you contradicting yourself. We too told the other blogger to stop making wild allegations.

>>> Guys here have mocked at me for
talking about guru and guru's
blessings. The blog owner never
protested.
======

Well havent you mocked me once for going after the Satanist phoney.

There are going to all sorts of people here, including pseudo-secularists.

DarkStorm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DarkStorm said...

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 ?
============

Well, i thought things would cool down.. LOL.. i aint any hero :)).

By the way, nobody has ever won a verbal fight with a woman.. :)

Should I be holding grudges against you for insulting me with your friend phoney Satanist. All in the middle of a conversation, you butt in and call me names.

Peace.. when. After rajeev asked both of you to cool down.. right. And did you read the second post on that blog entry, by Rajeev. By fighting , you are committing the grave error we have always made.. And fighting over what ???

And before you "made peace", i did once tell kalyani to not malign anyone without reason. And because both of you are one of us (though you are showing pseudo-secular and sonia-worship leanings now), no one bothered to take sides.

Acerbic language.. is that your complaint. .. Well, visit any "south asian" chat room or forum, and see the venom spewed against Hindus, especially Hindu women, and then you would realize we are angels. Again, truth is sometimes bitter, as they say, so you may find it acerbic.

Well anyway, I do respect both Sri Ravishankar and the Shankaracharya.

DarkStorm said...

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.

==========

Guess , i too should be complaining about this , daisies. I too have been moderated many a times. (I blame the trolls for that )

mahashivaji said...

Guess who's coming to dinner?
Salil Tripathi International Herald Tribune
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2006
LONDON According to Guy Dollé, chief executive of Arcelor, the world's second-largest steel group, which is the target of a $23 billion takeover bid, his company is like a perfume, whereas the predator, Mittal, the world's biggest steel group, is like a cheap eau de cologne.

Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister, has already promised to use "all necessary means" to prevent the merger from taking place, as if he is talking about an imminent war. The French finance minister, Thierry Breton, is concerned about Mittal's methods, and calls its plans "badly prepared." Others, sympathetic to Arcelor, are questioning Mittal's corporate governance.

Arcelor is based in Luxembourg and Mittal in Rotterdam. Why would European officials get so worked up over a merger between two groups based in Europe? At heart the European elite objects because Mittal's founder and chief executive, Lakshmi Mittal is, well, different; he is not "one of us."

Mittal is an immigrant in Fortress Europe, and they resent the idea of a man from the Orient gate-crashing a carefully laid-out garden party, in which a precise pecking order used to determine who sat where.

Mittal does not follow those rules. The Mittal group is family-owned, and Lakshmi Mittal is a peripatetic Indian who has moved around the world with the ease that globalization promises.

Born into a family that owned a steel mill, Mittal first went to Indonesia and then, in the 1980s and 1990s, in countries of limited interest to bigger companies, slowly set about acquiring and making viable steel plants that would have otherwise gone under.

By carefully pursuing his vision and remaining focused, he built the world's biggest steel company, and became, according to Forbes magazine, the world's third-richest person.

Criticism naturally followed, but it had less to do with his business plan and more with his tastes. Tabloids across Europe gleefully reported his purchase of a palatial 12-bedroom home in London's Kensington Palace Gardens for $127 million, a record price for a private home; or the lavish, $78-million wedding of his daughter over five days of festivities in a 17th-century French chateau; and the £125,000 he donated to Britain's Labour Party.

If a pedigreed European count or British lord had done any of this, it would have been taken for granted, perhaps even termed charmingly eccentric. But when a man who grew up in rural India does it, questions are raised suddenly about Mittal's "methods."

Mittal's method is exactly what globalization brings about. It changes the presumed natural order of doing business as it pursues efficiency. That means factories don't always remain in Europe and America; young men and women in Asia don't work only on the farm; and the value of your currency is not something your government alone can control.

Mittal's is a textbook strategy: Seek competitive advantage by consolidating the industry; build economies of scale to shield it from sudden spurts and collapses in prices. The bigger you are, the more costs you can squeeze from suppliers of iron ore. With demand increasing in China and India, a steel producer must aim for efficiency if prices are to be kept stable.

Arcelor may indeed have sound reasons to reject the Mittal bid, but so far it has reacted emotionally, not rationally. Market analysts have already said why the merger makes sense: The two groups' plants do not overlap much; their markets are also largely separate, making any antitrust inquiry a fishing expedition.

Corporate governance, however, is a legitimate issue to debate. Arcelor has made much of the fact that its 18-member board has several nationalities (although 17 of those directors are drawn from five contiguous European Union countries, the 18th being a Brazilian). And the Mittal family is well represented on Mittal's nine-member board, which includes Mittal's son, a senior executive, and daughter. There are two other distinguished financiers of Indian origin. But the other four board members include two Americans (the former head of International Steel Group and a senior counsel in a leading U.S. law firm), a Mexican diplomat and a European financier.

The objectors seem to want to say that although Mittal may be based in Europe, it is not of Europe - but they cannot say so in our politically correct times, hence the coded words. A better response would be to look at the numbers and let the best man win.

(Salil Tripathi, a former economics correspondent in Asia for The Far Eastern Economic Review, is a writer based in London.)

daisies said...

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 said...

Ohh.. wow.. no explanations regarding your support to nonsense talkers like phoney Satanist.

no explanations regarding your sonia-worshipping. (i would not mind a foreigner leading us, provided its someone like Dr. Annie Besant, and not a dumb school dropout like Sonia.. yeah i call her names, she deserves it. nothing to do with her being a female, i abuse madmoron, nutwar and arjun singh more, dear daisies).

No explanation about you calling me names, while accusing me of doing the same. Bang in the middle of a conversation, you come out of nowhere, you dont know anyone here and start calling people names. You displayed the very same pseudo-secular mindset at that time. You might have thought "Ok, its a christist Satanist abusing a Hindu out there, it must be that Hindu bigotry at work here from that Hindu"

Well, what you are doing is exactly ostrich-like behaviour. You havent answered any of my valid queries. You have just put your head in the sand.

>>>
I read your comments. It is now
very clear to me that you dont
understand what any of those
fights was exactly about.
======
I very well understand. Or you dont know how to write it out. I have seen you writing stuff so many times only to retract later, or say "I dint mean that , maybe I did not put it correctly".


Anyway, Forget it.

If I continue with you, you will keep taking me to new unrelated topics, throw blind allegations, and i would end up just proving that those allegations are false.

Nobody has won an argument with a woman.

daisies said...

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. :-)

DarkStorm said...

>>> And finally you accuse me of wild allegations.
=====

Pot calls the kettle black.

>>>>

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. :-)
=======

I concede. :-)

daisies said...

"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 said...

>>>
"Though vanquished, he would argue
still."
======


Can you read ?? I said I concede. Now stop posting lies about me, will you.

Guess I am taking you too lightly.. lil lady. I think you want to continue quarreling with people here, so I will give you this little pleasure. :-)

And you continue to accuse me of name calling, while it was YOU who did that. You still havent answered my valid questions. If you think you are right, answer them. It was YOU who did all the name calling with your friend phoney Satanist, who regularly posts against us here, without reason.

It is not for the reason that one is a co-religionist so one should agree. Who said that , Did I ? Wake up, stop day-dreaming.

Why do you have a problem if someone replies back to a semitic who posts nonsense here.

I can write down and clarify all your wrong assumptions you dreamt up. But i dont feel like doing it, because i know , like a true sonia-worshipping pseudo-secular intellectual, you would keep giving irrelevent words, while dreaming up some other vague lie/accusation about me.

Again, I concede. Stop posting crap about me. Dont make me lose my chivalry, inspite of all your posts against me, here as well as in previous blog entries.

daisies said...

Darkstorm,

I already answered your questions
earlier. Perhaps you did not
understand my answer.

This time around, for me, silence
is golden.

san said...

Read how an uppety Indian nigger is ruffling the uppercrust French establishment:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/03/yourmoney/mittal.php

The French look down on what they call Lakshi Mittal's "monkey money". Personally, I hope this monkey lifts a mountain, so I can see the expression on their faces when it happens.

mahashivaji said...

You mentioned "uppercrust French establishment".

Don't make me laugh! There's nothing uppercrust about the french any longer.

This is the group of people who have yet to win a war in this century.

Don't worry about the frenchies. Their days are numbered. I worked in France for several months. Their socialist false economy is crumbling into nothing, they have zero work-ethic, and because of their regressive racist policies, they have a huge angry minority soon to be a majority.

So...don't worry about them. Do you think that 60 million french can face up to 1.1 BILLION hard working, fiercly competitive, determined Indians?

NO!

DarkStorm said...

Actually , I feel France deserves what it is getting. They are much more racist than the British. (I havent been to either Britain or France, but I am recalling my friends experiences).

Also, you will notice that former colonies of France are much more poor and underdeveloped today, than the former colonies of Britain. (Though both were wrong, France was worse of the two).

I feel sad for France, a great power reduced to one of those petty European states, with rabidly racist dhimmi people. They cant even fight for themselves. (Remember WW2).

Sadly, a country that stopped entry of Jehadis into Europe is today a dhimmi state.