Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

Now, let us say there is person A, who posts this marriage Ad - Desired a female with at least bachelor's degree.

How would you classify Person A? Is he a racist? Prejudiced? What is he? This person is discriminating against every female who does not have a bachelor degree. Think about the intent of the person, not the word meaning of the word you are using to describe him. The lady in the Rediff Ad says that she wants nothing to do with Africans. She is branded as racist and prejudiced. Person A in my Ad says that he wants nothing to do with females who don't have bachelor's degree. Both are excluding a group of people. One based on skin color (probably), the other based on education. Reasons are different, but result is the same - exclusion of people.

What would you call the person A?

Not a proper analogy

A person who wants a college degree in a mate is discerning -- the criteria for discernment is human endeavor or achievement, not something beyond our control such as the color of skin.

You can call the person wanting a Bachelor's degree has selective or elitist but the basis for such elitism is based on a controllable facet, not an uncontrollable one.

How can you say it is not beyond control? What about a poor girl, whose parents did not have any money to educate her? It is not in her control that she did not get education. She is being filtered out for no fault of her. Even a poor girl can be a good wife. Right? So why is she being filtered out?

Now you see my point? My point is not whether you filter based on a controlled criteria or uncontrolled criteria. My point is that when you apply the term racism so loosely, you basically say that if anyone is excluding people, he is racist.

[ruchir]

After reading the Ad again I realized that it is probably been written by a male, not female.

This is incorrect. I fully considered the implication of intent --and I found no angle that could possibly exonerate her from the charge of prejudice.

In such issues, intent plays a big part in determining prejudice vs informed choice.

However, in the ad, she does not indicate anything that can be remotely transferred to informed choice.

For example, if she said "non Indians need not apply", an argument could be made in her favor that she is aware that the cultural chasm or gap may be a difficult one to breach and thus she wants to avoid that. Or alternatively, its one with which her larger family may not be comfortable with.

While some may argue stringently that even that hints at strong ethnocentrism, there are at least logical and plausible arguments that can be presented to show that her intents were not racial.

In this case, she excludes only one group -- Africans.

Not Indians, or Europeans or Australians or Americans or Chinese  or Japanese. Just one group -- Africans.

So what argument is there to give her the benefit of the doubt ?

Education -- stereotyping (by product of racial prejudices associated with Africans)
Intelligence - stereotyping (by product of racial prejudices associated with Africans)
Skin color - downright racism
Height -- again stereotyping
12 inches -- again stereotyping (if you ever get a chance, delve into the cultural origins of the Africans and bigger member myth -- that is also another stereotype that was spread by the Whites to further dehumanize this population as something between animal and proper human)
Cultural differences -- why was this not applicable to the groups excluded - Chinese, Europeans, Japanese, Americans ?

All that you say is fine and dandy, but my question has been, has this person (now we know - a guy) excluded Africans with an intent to hurt them in some way? I have been saying that we have to distinguish between hurtful exclusion and choice exclusion.

Are you telling me that you would have been okay if this person had not written "Africans please excuse" in the Ad but would have filtered them out later? 'cause then, on the face he would have looked like a normal guy. He could have silently filtered out the African responses. He would still have been a racist or would he then have exercised his right to choose properly?

Nope, I differentiated quite well and in reasonable detail. And yes, I think our cultural obsession with looking for fair is a tad shameful to say the least. As I have noted before on the DG, brighter shades do stimulate brain cells in an uplifting way, which explains why anything bright or fair is looked upon favorably, but its our obsession with fair to the exclusion of everything else that reeks of racism in our society as well.

Its the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about because we love living in denial.

It is shameful? Wow, you can be the moral compass of the world, because you have characteristics that most humans don't. It is human nature to feel the need to own or associate with something you don't have. Most Indians don't have fair color. That's why they feel drawn more toward those humans who have color fairer then them. Whether it is for a boy or a girl, when they look for a partner, the first filtration is more often than not based on physical aspects (unless the groom is looking for dowry or boy/girl have something wrong with them). This is not just an Indian thing. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Sure, you will find many whites choosing black partners, and vice versa. But remember, that is still an exception. So according to you, most of the world is either prejudiced or racist. You consider selection based on physical parameters as something we should be ashamed of.

Why should it be shameful? Let us say you are of marriage age and are looking for a partner. You don't want arranged marriage. So, when you search for a girl (in work place, or marriage sites, or in malls), who do you first start paying attention to? Just any girl in random or those who appeal to you more than others? If it is latter, what kind of girls appeal to you more? Ugly? Average? Good looking? Remember, chances are that you won't know much about them at this time. Not much knowledge about their intellect, their habits etc. So how do you start short listing? If I were to venture a guess, I would say the first thing to attract you would be the physical aspects of the girls. You would be drawn more toward those whom you would consider good looking. I'm sure most of them would be fairer in color than the ones you did not pick. Going by your logic given above, this process would wither be prejudiced, or racist; not a simple matter of personal selection.

But you did not read my response properly -- I said "the person might be called a religious bigot"

The "might" was to specifically account for the nuances involved when it comes to religion -- instead of that being  a blind hatred towards a religious group, it could be informed personal choice based on actual differences in religious philosophies. As in the lady knows that being a Hindu, she will have  ahard time reconciling herself with someone from a different faith or that she is worried about the impact on the future kids borne out of that union.

hence the use of might -- as in she might be called a bigot or might not, depending on intent, reason and its application to the case at hand. I choose my words carefully.

Oh!!!! So if a Muslim girl does not want to marry a Hindu, it is based on so-called informed choices? And you think she won't have a problem if she marries a Christian or a Sikh or Budhhist? She will have problems only with Hindus and it is to be considered "informed" because of differences in faith? So there are no differences between Muslims and Chirstians or Muslims and Sikhs/Chinese/Buddhist/Jews? Only marrying a Hindu will affect her kids, not marrying a person of any other faith?

Do you see the ridiculousness of your logic?

Yes it is.

Your opinion.

Yes it is.

[ruchir]

I think we need some context here..

Assuming this person is from Mumbai... the common term for Africans (and to any reader of this ad - it means a black african) is "Habshi" - which is derogatory. period. It is mean, it implies the person is a drug peddler.. it implies the person is poor, street-monger.

This is a racist ad in intent..it clearly says if you are a "habshi", stay away.  We can parse and spin it any which way...to any normal reader in Mumbai the message would be very clear.

Based on what do you think the poster is equating Africans to drug peddlers? Are you too extrapolating the common usage to this particular poster, based on your assumption, without knowing anything about him? What if the poster did not put the last phrase in the Ad but silently filtered out African responses later? Would he have, in that case, used his right to choose wisely or would he still be a racist?

BTW, the poster seems to be a man, if you read the Ad again, as I did.

[ramshorns]

Why should it be shameful? Let us say you are of marriage age and are looking for a partner. You don't want arranged marriage. So, when you search for a girl (in work place, or marriage sites, or in malls), who do you first start paying attention to?   

I find that extremely funny, I do not know why?

Without getting into this debate, if I were looking for a girl to get married(I am happily married now) that is not probably a place I would be hanging around looking for a life partner atleast in the NYC/NJ area .  My advise to you all budding grooms go find some place else for a good woman.

[Cover Point]

Why should it be shameful? Let us say you are of marriage age and are looking for a partner. You don't want arranged marriage. So, when you search for a girl (in work place, or marriage sites, or in malls), who do you first start paying attention to?   

I find that extremely funny, I do not know why?

Without getting into this debate, if I were looking for a girl to get married(I am happily married now) that is not probably a place I would be hanging around looking for a life partner atleast in the NYC/NJ area .  My advise to you all budding grooms go find some place else for a good woman.

like a ladies rest  room

[teamindia]

Agree with Ruchir. I wouldn't call this a racist ad.
I see racism where someone is denied their rights because of their race (or put whatever criteria here).
No one can say that he/she has RIGHT to be partner of that person irrespective of his/her race. Afterall it is the person's life that is on offer, and he must have a right to choose what kind of partner he/she prefers.

Had it been something (job, admission, civil rights etc) where everyone has equal rights irrespective of race it would have been racist. 

[kban1]

How can you say it is not beyond control? What about a poor girl, whose parents did not have any money to educate her? It is not in her control that she did not get education. She is being filtered out for no fault of her. Even a poor girl can be a good wife. Right? So why is she being filtered out?

I knew you would come back with this comment.

And I agree with you that someone who is choosing based on education is filtering for a facet that is not completely controllable. But beyond opportunity its not uncontrollable either. My use of controllable facet as a phrase was to distingusih between naturally occurring attributes and attributes that are not naturally occuring. Use of skin color as an attribute falls within naturally occuring attributes. There is a certain nuance involved here based on the degree of controllability rather than the binary yes -no situation.

As I said before, a person making such a choice could well be guilty of discrimination based on elitist principles (essentially a snob). alternatively, he / she could well be setting the bar at a college degree to ensure a better shot at  mental and emotional compatibility by narrowing the field to someone who shares a similar educational background/

Now you see my point? My point is not whether you filter based on a controlled criteria or uncontrolled criteria.

No, I dont because there is not a parallel between racism and decisions made based on other criteria.

In each of the examples provided, the choice is based on a defined criteria /attributes which can and often does have an impact on issues related to relationships and compatibility.

Being African is not a defined criteria or attribute that impedes relationship in any way except that it alludes to a group with a certain predominant characteristic, which is color. Because being African does not connotate a monothematic view with respect to any of the following: education, religion, culture.

There is a difference and a significant one.

My point is that when you apply the term racism so loosely, you basically say that if anyone is excluding people, he is racist.

No, I am not using the term loosely at all. I know enough about it not to use it flippantly --but based on the ad above, I dont see any criteria which remotely resembles anything close to informed or defensible choice based on logic or reasoning.

I explained it quite well in my last post. Please re read my post. Beyond that I cannot help you.

[pieterSAN]

Agree with Ruchir. I wouldn't call this a racist ad.
I see racism where someone is denied their rights because of their race (or put whatever criteria here).
No one can say that he/she has RIGHT to be partner of that person irrespective of his/her race. Afterall it is the person's life that is on offer, and he must have a right to choose what kind of partner he/she prefers.

Had it been something (job, admission, civil rights etc) where everyone has equal rights irrespective of race it would have been racist. 

I am sorry - racism and prejudice manifest in far more ways than the types of discrimination you have listed above. Using racist slur is (wait for it....) racist but it does not deny the victim their rights. How is this for an example - student in the U.S goes to the dorm cafeteria and puts a sign on his table saying " Africans please excuse". I wonder....what kind of reaction would that have.

[kban1]

Are you telling me that you would have been okay if this person had not written "Africans please excuse" in the Ad but would have filtered them out later? 'cause then, on the face he would have looked like a normal guy. He could have silently filtered out the African responses. He would still have been a racist or would he then have exercised his right to choose properly?

This is silent racism --if he did that.

There is nothing I can do about that, especially because I wouldnt know about it anyways.

But what he has done is express it and its out there for everyone to see.

I would be damned if I let that pass without my disapproval of that conduct --because my opinion (and others like me) send the message that this is unaceeptable. Maybe it wont make a difference, probably wont --but my disapproval on being aware of it is all I can do, and I express it.

Others or their propensity to either condone this behavior or their inability to understand the difference between this and the other irrelevant analogies provided on this thread is one of the reasons why such behavior continues -- because it sends a message that yes, this is ok --chalta hai yaar.

You can be happy with the latter, I shall remain with the former.

It is shameful? Wow, you can be the moral compass of the world, because you have characteristics that most humans don't.

This is your opinion

It is human nature to feel the need to own or associate with something you don't have.

Not necessarily.

Most Indians don't have fair color. That's why they feel drawn more toward those humans who have color fairer then them.

maybe in some cases but I dont quite buy that as an absolute. There are other determinants --

1) how the brain reacts to fairer color
2) and this is important --the inevitable advantage that our society confers on someone with a fairer color --this is societal, this is based on current attitudes, this is also largely controllable (point 1 notwithstanding) and unless we change our thinking and attitudes including but not limited to the preference for fairness to the point of exclusion of that which is not so fair, we will continue to perpetuate this process trapped in an endless vicious cycle.

Whether it is for a boy or a girl, when they look for a partner, the first filtration is more often than not based on physical aspects (unless the groom is looking for dowry or boy/girl have something wrong with them). This is not just an Indian thing. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

And the only determinant of physical characteristics is color ? fairness / lack thereof ?

Sure, you will find many whites choosing black partners, and vice versa. But remember, that is still an exception.

Yes, but the exception is hardly due to the reasons you state. there are  alot of people with not fair skin who have very good physical attributes that make them physically attractive. And a lot of people with fair skin whose skin color masks lack of physical features associated with attractiveness (again the uplifting effect of bright colors on the human perception schema)

So according to you, most of the world is either prejudiced or racist. You consider selection based on physical parameters as something we should be ashamed of.

Why should it be shameful? Let us say you are of marriage age and are looking for a partner. You don't want arranged marriage. So, when you search for a girl (in work place, or marriage sites, or in malls), who do you first start paying attention to? Just any girl in random or those who appeal to you more than others? If it is latter, what kind of girls appeal to you more? Ugly? Average? Good looking? Remember, chances are that you won't know much about them at this time. Not much knowledge about their intellect, their habits etc. So how do you start short listing? If I were to venture a guess, I would say the first thing to attract you would be the physical aspects of the girls. You would be drawn more toward those whom you would consider good looking. I'm sure most of them would be fairer in color than the ones you did not pick. Going by your logic given above, this process would wither be prejudiced, or racist; not a simple matter of personal selection.

No, selection based on physical phhenomena is not racist unless skin color becomes the sole or primary determinant.

And selection based on physical phenomena does not become shallow unless the physical parameters are the sole or primary determinant in making the choice.

I believe your point was with regards to initial impressions based on physical appearance, not final criteria -- the logic behind the initial filetring is rooted in biological instinct. Not sure what this has to do with fairness to the exclusion of all others --that is the crux of the matter as expressed in the ad.

Oh!!!! So if a Muslim girl does not want to marry a Hindu, it is based on so-called informed choices? And you think she won't have a problem if she marries a Christian or a Sikh or Budhhist? She will have problems only with Hindus and it is to be considered "informed" because of differences in faith? So there are no differences between Muslims and Chirstians or Muslims and Sikhs/Chinese/Buddhist/Jews? Only marrying a Hindu will affect her kids, not marrying a person of any other faith?

What rubbish -- do you even read ?

I quoted a hypothetical example of a woman who is Hindu (not Muslim) making a determination that her religious beliefs wont allow her to adjust to someone with a different faith -- this was an example where I did not specify the other faith, neither did I make the claim that she would not get along with faith a but would get along with Faith B.

Please read before you respond.

And for the record, I said that this decision might be construed as "informed choice" or it might be construed as religous bigotry --depending on the situation.

Do you see the ridiculousness of your logic?

No, I see the ridiculousness of you not having the patience to read my comments.

[ruchir]

How can you say it is not beyond control? What about a poor girl, whose parents did not have any money to educate her? It is not in her control that she did not get education. She is being filtered out for no fault of her. Even a poor girl can be a good wife. Right? So why is she being filtered out?

I knew you would come back with this comment.

And I agree with you that someone who is choosing based on education is filtering for a facet that is not completely controllable. But beyond opportunity its not uncontrollable either. My use of controllable facet as a phrase was to distingusih between naturally occurring attributes and attributes that are not naturally occuring. Use of skin color as an attribute falls within naturally occuring attributes. There is a certain nuance involved here based on the degree of controllability rather than the binary yes -no situation.

As I said before, a person making such a choice could well be guilty of discrimination based on elitist principles (essentially a snob). alternatively, he / she could well be setting the bar at a college degree to ensure a better shot at  mental and emotional compatibility by narrowing the field to someone who shares a similar educational background/

Are you trying to pull a Bill Clinton here, Pitamah? Getting so technical that now you are trying to define what "is" is? Do we have to live our lives based on the definition of words written in a dictionary? Are we that bound in our lives now?

How do you know that person made his choice based on skin color? There are a lot of dark colored Mumbaikars too. He didn't say "Dark color ladies please excuse". How the heck do you know he was making his choice based on skin color? Maybe he didn't want to waste time in filtering out ugly girls because he thinks that majority of African girls would be ugly.

This is similar to your logic of mental and emotional compatibility. How the heck does a person know that a college graduate girl will give him better mental and emotional compatibility? How does he know that? What is this thought based on? Is there any scientific research done that a college graduate will provide better mental and emotional compatibility? All this, whatever you are saying, is based on perception. It is a perception that a college graduate girl will give him better compatibility, and based on this perception he filters out non-graduate girls. And this is perfectly justifiable to you. But if the Ad poster is filtering out African girls because of his perception of them being mostly ugly (his standard), he is a racist. I salute you sir. 

Oh, so by setting a bar of college degree, he is ensuring mental and emotional compatibility?? That is the level of technicality that you will use? So if the Ad guy tries to ensure the same thing, he is racist? I don't understand how filtering based on ANY criteria is any different? How can you justify filtering based on education, religion?

Now you see my point? My point is not whether you filter based on a controlled criteria or uncontrolled criteria.

No, I dont because there is not a parallel between racism and decisions made based on other criteria.

In each of the examples provided, the choice is based on a defined criteria /attributes which can and often does have an impact on issues related to relationships and compatibility.

Being African is not a defined criteria or attribute that impedes relationship in any way except that it alludes to a group with a certain predominant characteristic, which is color. Because being African does not connotate a monothematic view with respect to any of the following: education, religion, culture.

There is a difference and a significant one.

I see, so you are saying that it is okay to filter based on education, religion or culture. I wonder how this is okay, I can't see any logic in this justification. And then you say that is it racist if you filter an African. I guess it is racist because you say so, or because some dictionary says so!! IMO either all filtration should be condemned or none. I don't understand how you can justify one thing and not the other.

My point is that when you apply the term racism so loosely, you basically say that if anyone is excluding people, he is racist.

No, I am not using the term loosely at all. I know enough about it not to use it flippantly --but based on the ad above, I dont see any criteria which remotely resembles anything close to informed or defensible choice based on logic or reasoning.

I explained it quite well in my last post. Please re read my post. Beyond that I cannot help you.

Sure you can't help me, because I don't have separate standards for different kind of filtration. You accuse me of having double standards, and here you are doing the same thing. Filtration based on education is okay because you need to ensure emotional compatibility. Filtration based on nationality is not okay because if that person is black, you are racist.

[ruchir]

Are you telling me that you would have been okay if this person had not written "Africans please excuse" in the Ad but would have filtered them out later? 'cause then, on the face he would have looked like a normal guy. He could have silently filtered out the African responses. He would still have been a racist or would he then have exercised his right to choose properly?

This is silent racism --if he did that.

There is nothing I can do about that, especially because I wouldnt know about it anyways.

But what he has done is express it and its out there for everyone to see.

I would be damned if I let that pass without my disapproval of that conduct --because my opinion (and others like me) send the message that this is unaceeptable. Maybe it wont make a difference, probably wont --but my disapproval on being aware of it is all I can do, and I express it.

Others or their propensity to either condone this behavior or their inability to understand the difference between this and the other irrelevant analogies provided on this thread is one of the reasons why such behavior continues -- because it sends a message that yes, this is ok --chalta hai yaar.

You can be happy with the latter, I shall remain with the former.

 

I see, it is acceptable to filter based on education, but not on nationality.

So, what you are saying is that to be the perfect human specimen, by your standards, he HAS to converse with every single reply that he receives for his Ad. He is not allowed to accept or reject any reply based on his choice. I wonder why this standard of humanity is not applied to a groom rejecting brides based on education or religion? I guess because education gives so-called emotional compatibility; of which there is absolutely no scientific proof. I guess religious filtration is somehow so-called "informed" and saves future kids from future whatever.

But if a person does not want an African girlfriend, he is racist. He can have a dark color Indian girlfriend, that's not to be considered. If he refuses an African, he is a racist. 

It is shameful? Wow, you can be the moral compass of the world, because you have characteristics that most humans don't.

This is your opinion

Of course, it is!!

It is human nature to feel the need to own or associate with something you don't have.

Not necessarily.

Why? Because you say so?

Most Indians don't have fair color. That's why they feel drawn more toward those humans who have color fairer then them.

maybe in some cases but I dont quite buy that as an absolute. There are other determinants --

1) how the brain reacts to fairer color
2) and this is important --the inevitable advantage that our society confers on someone with a fairer color --this is societal, this is based on current attitudes, this is also largely controllable (point 1 notwithstanding) and unless we change our thinking and attitudes including but not limited to the preference for fairness to the point of exclusion of that which is not so fair, we will continue to perpetuate this process trapped in an endless vicious cycle.

 

Back to giving definition of what "is" is?

Is there any scientific research you have read, that you are telling me how brain reacts to fair color? I am talking about how a person normally reacts to something he doesn't have. What do you do when you are walking through a clothes store? You walk straight, without your eyes diverting here or there, or do you look at clothes and admire the expensive ones you like? If you admire, does the thought ever crosses your mind that you may want to buy one or some of them? (apologies if it sounds like you don't have expensive clothes. that is not the intent.) THAT is the human nature I am talking about. General human behavior that manifests itself in most human actions.

If a person (boy or girl) is looking at 2 possible partners, and both are equal in all aspects, except that one is fairer than other, and the person chooses the fairer one, will you say that this person is a racist? What should this person do? Flip a coin and choose the partner?

Are you writing your comments based on some fairyland or real world? When a person looks for a life partner and has a preference for fair color, it's not like that person rejects every single dark (potential) partner. It seems like that is where you are trying to get, and that never happens. I have seen Indian fellows marrying ugly looking (my standard), plump girls because they got crores in dowry. And then there are also fellows who go for beauty, not money. And then there are fellows who go for intellect, not money or beauty. According to your logic the person who goes for beauty has a good chance of being called a racist because he might have rejected a dark girl.

Whether it is for a boy or a girl, when they look for a partner, the first filtration is more often than not based on physical aspects (unless the groom is looking for dowry or boy/girl have something wrong with them). This is not just an Indian thing. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

And the only determinant of physical characteristics is color ? fairness / lack thereof ?

Who said so? Did I say so, or are you trying to put words in my mouth? Or are you jumping the gun and saying that this is what I would have meant to say?

Sure, you will find many whites choosing black partners, and vice versa. But remember, that is still an exception.

Yes, but the exception is hardly due to the reasons you state. there are  alot of people with not fair skin who have very good physical attributes that make them physically attractive. And a lot of people with fair skin whose skin color masks lack of physical features associated with attractiveness (again the uplifting effect of bright colors on the human perception schema)

Exactly!!! That's what I mean too!! And maybe the guy posting the Ad may not have wanted to invite African girls because of his perceived notion that they may be ugly. Just like in your example, the groom looks for an educated bride because of his perception that he will get better mental and emotional compatibility.

So according to you, most of the world is either prejudiced or racist. You consider selection based on physical parameters as something we should be ashamed of.

Why should it be shameful? Let us say you are of marriage age and are looking for a partner. You don't want arranged marriage. So, when you search for a girl (in work place, or marriage sites, or in malls), who do you first start paying attention to? Just any girl in random or those who appeal to you more than others? If it is latter, what kind of girls appeal to you more? Ugly? Average? Good looking? Remember, chances are that you won't know much about them at this time. Not much knowledge about their intellect, their habits etc. So how do you start short listing? If I were to venture a guess, I would say the first thing to attract you would be the physical aspects of the girls. You would be drawn more toward those whom you would consider good looking. I'm sure most of them would be fairer in color than the ones you did not pick. Going by your logic given above, this process would wither be prejudiced, or racist; not a simple matter of personal selection.

No, selection based on physical phhenomena is not racist unless skin color becomes the sole or primary determinant.

And selection based on physical phenomena does not become shallow unless the physical parameters are the sole or primary determinant in making the choice.

I believe your point was with regards to initial impressions based on physical appearance, not final criteria -- the logic behind the initial filetring is rooted in biological instinct. Not sure what this has to do with fairness to the exclusion of all others --that is the crux of the matter as expressed in the ad.

I don't know how the comment in bold, red sounds to others but it sounds ridiculous to me. Again you are going for the word-meaning. It is okay to reject a girl if she is 10 pounds heavy, but is not okay to reject if she is a shade dark. I mean, she can get a liposuction, can't she?

And selection based on physical phenomena does not become shallow unless the physical parameters are the sole or primary determinant in making the choice. -- Again you throw your brand of morality in the face and want everyone to live by your standards. Why? Why is it shallow to look for a lean partner? What if I want my future children to be healthy? A plump partner will mean that my kids will inherit the plumpness gene from her. That may result in kid getting fat, and developing high BP, diabetes, or any other problem! So, if I am looking out for my future kids in choosing a lean partner, I am being shallow. If I am looking out for my kids by rejecting a Hindu partner, that is all fine and dandy.

Oh!!!! So if a Muslim girl does not want to marry a Hindu, it is based on so-called informed choices? And you think she won't have a problem if she marries a Christian or a Sikh or Budhhist? She will have problems only with Hindus and it is to be considered "informed" because of differences in faith? So there are no differences between Muslims and Chirstians or Muslims and Sikhs/Chinese/Buddhist/Jews? Only marrying a Hindu will affect her kids, not marrying a person of any other faith?

What rubbish -- do you even read ?

I quoted a hypothetical example of a woman who is Hindu (not Muslim) making a determination that her religious beliefs wont allow her to adjust to someone with a different faith -- this was an example where I did not specify the other faith, neither did I make the claim that she would not get along with faith a but would get along with Faith B.

Please read before you respond.

And for the record, I said that this decision might be construed as "informed choice" or it might be construed as religous bigotry --depending on the situation.

Depending on what situation? Can you elaborate on that? Either it is bigotry or not. I can see you giving me an excuse that if a Muslim girl marries Hindu, she might have problem at home, so it is understandable (you call is "informed choice"). Is it not still religious bigotry? By your high moral standards, the lady is supposed to rebel against her parents, but HAS to marry a Hindu.

What rubbish -- do you even read ?

I quoted a hypothetical example of a woman who is Hindu (not Muslim)......this was an example where I did not specify the other faith......

I said:

If a Muslim girls posts a marriage Ad that says "Hindus need not apply", it's her choice, it's her life. Why should she be made to look bad, by being called racist?

You said:

As in the lady knows that being a Hindu, she will have  ahard time reconciling herself with someone from a different faith or that she is worried about the impact on the future kids borne out of that union.

Is it me who is not reading or is it you who is having short term memory loss? 

[kban1]

How can you say it is not beyond control? What about a poor girl, whose parents did not have any money to educate her? It is not in her control that she did not get education. She is being filtered out for no fault of her. Even a poor girl can be a good wife. Right? So why is she being filtered out?

I knew you would come back with this comment.

And I agree with you that someone who is choosing based on education is filtering for a facet that is not completely controllable. But beyond opportunity its not uncontrollable either. My use of controllable facet as a phrase was to distingusih between naturally occurring attributes and attributes that are not naturally occuring. Use of skin color as an attribute falls within naturally occuring attributes. There is a certain nuance involved here based on the degree of controllability rather than the binary yes -no situation.

As I said before, a person making such a choice could well be guilty of discrimination based on elitist principles (essentially a snob). alternatively, he / she could well be setting the bar at a college degree to ensure a better shot at  mental and emotional compatibility by narrowing the field to someone who shares a similar educational background/

Are you trying to pull a Bill Clinton here, Pitamah? Getting so technical that now you are trying to define what "is" is? Do we have to live our lives based on the definition of words written in a dictionary? Are we that bound in our lives now?

The Clintonian reference is off. And your words tell me you dont get anything I am saying at all.

The basic point here is life is not black and white, there are different shades and hues. Unlike your multiple choice world view of either "yes" or "no", in real life not everything is that easily slotted.

How do you know that person made his choice based on skin color? There are a lot of dark colored Mumbaikars too. He didn't say "Dark color ladies please excuse". How the heck do you know he was making his choice based on skin color? Maybe he didn't want to waste time in filtering out ugly girls because he thinks that majority of African girls would be ugly

.

Now you are once again off topic. Even if his choice were based on his view that African girls would be ugly, that is still a stereotype that he is adhering to and a wrong one at that. So even at best, he is guilty of stereotyping.

And now turning the same logic back at you, if he is worried about ugliness, what makes him believe that Indian /Chinese/European/American girls will not be ugly ? Why single out "africans" ?

Why not say -- "only decent looking /pretty girls need apply" ?

You can twist and turn the basic point of this argument (as is usually your wont in almost any debate you participate in) any way you want, but the fact remains this person excluded an entire nationality  --which means the distingusihing factor could not have been looks (there are good looking and ugly), could not have been culture (cultures vary in Africa and there are difference between Indian and European / Chinese /American etc cultures --the latter were groups that were not included), and could not have been religion (because Africans come in all different religions), which leaves us with only one other factor.

This is similar to your logic of mental and emotional compatibility. How the heck does a person know that a college graduate girl will give him better mental and emotional compatibility? How does he know that? What is this thought based on? Is there any scientific research done that a college graduate will provide better mental and emotional compatibility? All this, whatever you are saying, is based on perception. It is a perception that a college graduate girl will give him better compatibility, and based on this perception he filters out non-graduate girls. And this is perfectly justifiable to you. But if the Ad poster is filtering out African girls because of his perception of them being mostly ugly (his standard), he is a racist. I salute you sir. 

Unfortunately for you, sociology and pyschology are not your strongpoints. If they were, you would know that the relationship between mental compatibility and similar levels of intelligence (education is usually a signalling tool denoting intelligence) and that between mental compatibility and life experiences/exposure is very well established. Along with few other factors

So, no its not perception, its based on established facts.

How a person chooses to use that is up to him / her and where he or she sets the bar for it is up to him / her.


PS: There could also be another reason why a person is using college education to filter --the possibility of having a professional spouse --two wage earner family. Just another possibility to consider

Oh, so by setting a bar of college degree, he is ensuring mental and emotional compatibility?? That is the level of technicality that you will use? So if the Ad guy tries to ensure the same thing, he is racist? I don't understand how filtering based on ANY criteria is any different? How can you justify filtering based on education, religion?

He is not ensuring, he is trying to filter. Nothing is guaranteed in life.

of course, filtering based on different criteria is different. Its not just perception but the reasons behind the perception that matter. The "African" perception has no basis behind it, the education filter has some justifiable basis behind it.

If all kinds of filtration were to be treated the same, why would every employer refusing a job or promotion be subject to a law suit ? or alternatively, why would there be lawsuits only when the filtration took place based on gender /race /nationality /age based criteria only ?

Now you see my point? My point is not whether you filter based on a controlled criteria or uncontrolled criteria.

No, I dont because there is not a parallel between racism and decisions made based on other criteria.

In each of the examples provided, the choice is based on a defined criteria /attributes which can and often does have an impact on issues related to relationships and compatibility.

Being African is not a defined criteria or attribute that impedes relationship in any way except that it alludes to a group with a certain predominant characteristic, which is color. Because being African does not connotate a monothematic view with respect to any of the following: education, religion, culture.

There is a difference and a significant one.

I see, so you are saying that it is okay to filter based on education, religion or culture. I wonder how this is okay, I can't see any logic in this justification. And then you say that is it racist if you filter an African. I guess it is racist because you say so, or because some dictionary says so!! IMO either all filtration should be condemned or none. I don't understand how you can justify one thing and not the other.

I justify rational filtration. I do not justify stereotypical / unjustified filtration.

The yes or no answers do not really work here.

My point is that when you apply the term racism so loosely, you basically say that if anyone is excluding people, he is racist.

No, I am not using the term loosely at all. I know enough about it not to use it flippantly --but based on the ad above, I dont see any criteria which remotely resembles anything close to informed or defensible choice based on logic or reasoning.

I explained it quite well in my last post. Please re read my post. Beyond that I cannot help you.

Sure you can't help me, because I don't have separate standards for different kind of filtration. You accuse me of having double standards, and here you are doing the same thing. Filtration based on education is okay because you need to ensure emotional compatibility. Filtration based on nationality is not okay because if that person is black, you are racist.

I cant help you because of your 1 -0, yes /no, all /nothing viewpoint of the world and your refusal or inability to find a perspective that goes beyond that. Your inability to differentiate is the reason you dont get it.

A rational filtration criteria is justified anyday -- it happens all round us including schools, colleges, jobs, business, etc.

An irrational / unjustified criteria is not justified -- this also happens around us but are either under the surface or pass by unnoticed because some dont know how to differentiate.

[dextrous]

Is there an exceutive summary available for this debate?

[Cover Point]

Is there an exceutive summary available for this debate?

here it is

Kban says if you dont date a kallu you are racist
Ruchir wants to only do Bristol Palin (one year from now)

[kban1]

Are you telling me that you would have been okay if this person had not written "Africans please excuse" in the Ad but would have filtered them out later? 'cause then, on the face he would have looked like a normal guy. He could have silently filtered out the African responses. He would still have been a racist or would he then have exercised his right to choose properly?

This is silent racism --if he did that.

There is nothing I can do about that, especially because I wouldnt know about it anyways.

But what he has done is express it and its out there for everyone to see.

I would be damned if I let that pass without my disapproval of that conduct --because my opinion (and others like me) send the message that this is unaceeptable. Maybe it wont make a difference, probably wont --but my disapproval on being aware of it is all I can do, and I express it.

Others or their propensity to either condone this behavior or their inability to understand the difference between this and the other irrelevant analogies provided on this thread is one of the reasons why such behavior continues -- because it sends a message that yes, this is ok --chalta hai yaar.

You can be happy with the latter, I shall remain with the former.

I see, it is acceptable to filter based on education, but not on nationality.

So, what you are saying is that to be the perfect human specimen, by your standards, he HAS to converse with every single reply that he receives for his Ad. He is not allowed to accept or reject any reply based on his choice. I wonder why this standard of humanity is not applied to a groom rejecting brides based on education or religion? I guess because education gives so-called emotional compatibility; of which there is absolutely no scientific proof. I guess religious filtration is somehow so-called "informed" and saves future kids from future whatever.

But if a person does not want an African girlfriend, he is racist. He can have a dark color Indian girlfriend, that's not to be considered. If he refuses an African, he is a racist.  

Already explained

It is human nature to feel the need to own or associate with something you don't have.

Not necessarily.

Why? Because you say so?

Yes. Do some research, educate youself.

Most Indians don't have fair color. That's why they feel drawn more toward those humans who have color fairer then them.

maybe in some cases but I dont quite buy that as an absolute. There are other determinants --

1) how the brain reacts to fairer color
2) and this is important --the inevitable advantage that our society confers on someone with a fairer color --this is societal, this is based on current attitudes, this is also largely controllable (point 1 notwithstanding) and unless we change our thinking and attitudes including but not limited to the preference for fairness to the point of exclusion of that which is not so fair, we will continue to perpetuate this process trapped in an endless vicious cycle.

Back to giving definition of what "is" is?

Your refusal to think beyind black and white is somehow my problem ?  

Is there any scientific research you have read, that you are telling me how brain reacts to fair color?

Yes

I am talking about how a person normally reacts to something he doesn't have. What do you do when you are walking through a clothes store? You walk straight, without your eyes diverting here or there, or do you look at clothes and admire the expensive ones you like? If you admire, does the thought ever crosses your mind that you may want to buy one or some of them? (apologies if it sounds like you don't have expensive clothes. that is not the intent.) THAT is the human nature I am talking about. General human behavior that manifests itself in most human actions.

Explained earlier

If a person (boy or girl) is looking at 2 possible partners, and both are equal in all aspects, except that one is fairer than other, and the person chooses the fairer one, will you say that this person is a racist? What should this person do? Flip a coin and choose the partner?

Your assumption that the person would choose the fairer one. person could equally choose the non fair one. And this one choice does not make him a racist. Like I said, you are arguing about a concept (racism) which you know little about.

Are you writing your comments based on some fairyland or real world? When a person looks for a life partner and has a preference for fair color, it's not like that person rejects every single dark (potential) partner. It seems like that is where you are trying to get, and that never happens. I have seen Indian fellows marrying ugly looking (my standard), plump girls because they got crores in dowry. And then there are also fellows who go for beauty, not money. And then there are fellows who go for intellect, not money or beauty. According to your logic the person who goes for beauty has a good chance of being called a racist because he might have rejected a dark girl.

To amplify for you one last time, since this is my last response to you on this thread,

1) the person who goes for beauty wont be called racist because beauty does not equate to fair (although your equating of it above perhaps gives an insight into your own personal viewpoints).
2) The person who chooses a fair girl over a dark girl wont necessarily be called a racist either --at least based on this evidence.

However, a person who excludes all dark skinned girls from his criteria of selection ("africans, please excuse") will be.

There is a difference, even if you cant see it. As I said, you have no clue what I am talking about, neither do you have the slightest about the issue under discussion.

Whether it is for a boy or a girl, when they look for a partner, the first filtration is more often than not based on physical aspects (unless the groom is looking for dowry or boy/girl have something wrong with them). This is not just an Indian thing. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

And the only determinant of physical characteristics is color ? fairness / lack thereof ?

Who said so? Did I say so, or are you trying to put words in my mouth? Or are you jumping the gun and saying that this is what I would have meant to say?

I am pointing out that in the context of the topic, your bringing in beauty appears to connotate that skin color is a primary determinant of such beauty.

Sure, you will find many whites choosing black partners, and vice versa. But remember, that is still an exception.

Yes, but the exception is hardly due to the reasons you state. there are  alot of people with not fair skin who have very good physical attributes that make them physically attractive. And a lot of people with fair skin whose skin color masks lack of physical features associated with attractiveness (again the uplifting effect of bright colors on the human perception schema)

Exactly!!! That's what I mean too!! And maybe the guy posting the Ad may not have wanted to invite African girls because of his perceived notion that they may be ugly. Just like in your example, the groom looks for an educated bride because of his perception that he will get better mental and emotional compatibility.

Well, the problem with that of course is that the ad guy is working off of an erroneous base and a stereotype of an entire continent. Africans come in all shapes and sizes -- beautiful /attractive and not so attractive /ugly. Excluding the whole group is type casting or stereotyping. And since the predominant difference between Africans and Europeans / Americans / Chiinese -- all the non excluded groups -- is the color of the skin, this is a justifiable inference.

The issue about educational attainment as a filtration has been explained earlier.

So according to you, most of the world is either prejudiced or racist. You consider selection based on physical parameters as something we should be ashamed of.

Why should it be shameful? Let us say you are of marriage age and are looking for a partner. You don't want arranged marriage. So, when you search for a girl (in work place, or marriage sites, or in malls), who do you first start paying attention to? Just any girl in random or those who appeal to you more than others? If it is latter, what kind of girls appeal to you more? Ugly? Average? Good looking? Remember, chances are that you won't know much about them at this time. Not much knowledge about their intellect, their habits etc. So how do you start short listing? If I were to venture a guess, I would say the first thing to attract you would be the physical aspects of the girls. You would be drawn more toward those whom you would consider good looking. I'm sure most of them would be fairer in color than the ones you did not pick. Going by your logic given above, this process would wither be prejudiced, or racist; not a simple matter of personal selection.

No, selection based on physical phhenomena is not racist unless skin color becomes the sole or primary determinant.

And selection based on physical phenomena does not become shallow unless the physical parameters are the sole or primary determinant in making the choice.

I believe your point was with regards to initial impressions based on physical appearance, not final criteria -- the logic behind the initial filetring is rooted in biological instinct. Not sure what this has to do with fairness to the exclusion of all others --that is the crux of the matter as expressed in the ad.

I don't know how the comment in bold, red sounds to others but it sounds ridiculous to me. Again you are going for the word-meaning. It is okay to reject a girl if she is 10 pounds heavy, but is not okay to reject if she is a shade dark. I mean, she can get a liposuction, can't she?

Dont know why it sounds ridiculous -- if the decision making is based solely on skin color, then the racism charge has legs to it.

Rejecting a girl because she is 10 pounds overweight has jack to do with the issue at hand --the exclusion of an entire continent of people.

And selection based on physical phenomena does not become shallow unless the physical parameters are the sole or primary determinant in making the choice. -- Again you throw your brand of morality in the face and want everyone to live by your standards. Why? Why is it shallow to look for a lean partner? What if I want my future children to be healthy? A plump partner will mean that my kids will inherit the plumpness gene from her. That may result in kid getting fat, and developing high BP, diabetes, or any other problem! So, if I am looking out for my future kids in choosing a lean partner, I am being shallow. If I am looking out for my kids by rejecting a Hindu partner, that is all fine and dandy.

Again, a black and white view of the world.

My statement was if that is the sole or primary determinant, then it could be considered shallow. Like most things, there is a level at which such emphasis appears shallow --I hope you realize that.

Oh!!!! So if a Muslim girl does not want to marry a Hindu, it is based on so-called informed choices? And you think she won't have a problem if she marries a Christian or a Sikh or Budhhist? She will have problems only with Hindus and it is to be considered "informed" because of differences in faith? So there are no differences between Muslims and Chirstians or Muslims and Sikhs/Chinese/Buddhist/Jews? Only marrying a Hindu will affect her kids, not marrying a person of any other faith?

What rubbish -- do you even read ?

I quoted a hypothetical example of a woman who is Hindu (not Muslim) making a determination that her religious beliefs wont allow her to adjust to someone with a different faith -- this was an example where I did not specify the other faith, neither did I make the claim that she would not get along with faith a but would get along with Faith B.

Please read before you respond.

And for the record, I said that this decision might be construed as "informed choice" or it might be construed as religous bigotry --depending on the situation.

Depending on what situation? Can you elaborate on that? Either it is bigotry or not. I can see you giving me an excuse that if a Muslim girl marries Hindu, she might have problem at home, so it is understandable (you call is "informed choice"). Is it not still religious bigotry? By your high moral standards, the lady is supposed to rebel against her parents, but HAS to marry a Hindu.

The decision could be based on some real issues or just based on the subject's dislike for the person of another religion. The former could be justifiable, the latter would be bigotry.

I am not going to sit here and provide you with examples of what might be considered justifiable examples --I already provided a few. I suspect you might have had  a better understanding of the issue rather than your multiple choice view of it had you actually been in a interfaith or intercultural relationship.

What rubbish -- do you even read ?

I quoted a hypothetical example of a woman who is Hindu (not Muslim)......this was an example where I did not specify the other faith......

I said:

If a Muslim girls posts a marriage Ad that says "Hindus need not apply", it's her choice, it's her life. Why should she be made to look bad, by being called racist?

You said:

As in the lady knows that being a Hindu, she will have  ahard time reconciling herself with someone from a different faith or that she is worried about the impact on the future kids borne out of that union.

Is it me who is not reading or is it you who is having short term memory loss?  

Now you are trying to be clever. Go back and read the post I made and the response you gave to it.

There was absolutely no relation to what I said and what your reponse was.

Now you are trying to obfuscate the issue by quoting selective portions of my post and yours to make it appear as if I said something irrelevant.

Nice try, but does not work.