Print

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

[ruchir]

http://www.ted.com/talks/harsha_bhogle_the_rise_of_cricket_the_rise_of_india.html

[flute]

this ties in very nicely with my original theory. Many many days of discussion on this DG on various topics other than cricket confirmed it for me that the original old India, new India theory I talked about still holds water. I know gangulians are not going to like it, but I can't help it.

[ramshorns]

Neat.   This guy Harsha Bhogle is good at what he does.

[cricinfo]

Neat.   This guy Harsha Bhogle is good at what he does.

I did not know he had a hair transplant

[dhruvdeepak]

unbelievable...he got on TED. very cool.

[Blwe_torch]

Neat.   This guy Harsha Bhogle is good at what he does.

He ends up looking stupid, one way or the other...whether it is the hair transplant or hitching onto GC band-wagon................or trying to pull the smart one during commentary ( he has improved quite a bit here, no doubt)

[dhruvdeepak]

Neat.   This guy Harsha Bhogle is good at what he does.

He ends up looking stupid, one way or the other...whether it is the hair transplant or hitching onto GC band-wagon................or trying to pull the smart one during commentary ( he has improved quite a bit here, no doubt)

hair transplant has little to do with getting to speak at TED. fine achievement indeed (i have yet to see the video)

his commentary is fine, very good for someone who has not played cricket at intl level (in terms of insight earned from playing and/or captaining).

i would rate: boycott, warne, chappell, benaud, atherton, holding, hussain....as better than him. but he brings the ordinary spectator's perspective to the table; something the aforementioned cannot.

[keep-it-cool]

Neat.   This guy Harsha Bhogle is good at what he does.

He ends up looking stupid, one way or the other...whether it is the hair transplant or hitching onto GC band-wagon................or trying to pull the smart one during commentary ( he has improved quite a bit here, no doubt)

hair transplant has little to do with getting to speak at TED. fine achievement indeed (i have yet to see the video)

his commentary is fine, very good for someone who has not played cricket at intl level (in terms of insight earned from playing and/or captaining).

i would rate: boycott, warne, chappell, benaud, atherton, holding, hussain....as better than him. but he brings the ordinary spectator's perspective to the table; something the aforementioned cannot.

agree

[Blwe_torch]

Neat.   This guy Harsha Bhogle is good at what he does.

He ends up looking stupid, one way or the other...whether it is the hair transplant or hitching onto GC band-wagon................or trying to pull the smart one during commentary ( he has improved quite a bit here, no doubt)

hair transplant has little to do with getting to speak at TED. fine achievement indeed (i have yet to see the video)

his commentary is fine, very good for someone who has not played cricket at intl level (in terms of insight earned from playing and/or captaining).

i would rate: boycott, warne, chappell, benaud, atherton, holding, hussain....as better than him. but he brings the ordinary spectator's perspective to the table; something the aforementioned cannot.

Not the spectators perspective....but you can say, the layman's perspective.
He is very good, no doubt and has improved immensely in the company of Boycott and Gavaskar.
Initially, his street-smart comments sounded out of place, for a person who hasn't played much cricket. But, he has matured well.
That hair-transplant...............although a personal choice looks out of place....

[dhruvdeepak]

gavaskar has become one of the bigger turds dwelling in the toilet bowl these days.
he has forsaken all insight and decided to mumble and grumble, intermingled with some nice cliches. he is still one or two rungs at least above the other * for brains.

a list of pathetic commentators:

1. ravi shastri

daylight

siva
arun lol
ranil
ranjit
athar ali khan
radhakrishnan sreenivasan (not commentator but on our screens all throughout the indian season)

[keep-it-cool]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

[Blwe_torch]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

[vincent]

Very good speech by Harsha Bhogle.

[dhruvdeepak]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

good for him. i pay to hear cricket commentary

[cricinfo]

Very good speech by Harsha Bhogle.

very poor choice of music in the presentation

[Blwe_torch]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

good for him. i pay to hear cricket commentary

good for you too....as you get to hear the facts....your money's worth!

[Cover Point]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

I did not know we were still in the 70's.

Someone should tell Gavaskar and Blwe that things in the world have changed quite a bit since the 70's.

Per blwe ... someone with hands on experience of discrimination in the 30's should be able to comment about the current situation in the world.

When will these people stuck in the past learn that the world does move on around you!

[gouravk]

ive only seen half the talk so far ... plan to complete it at some point ... but uptil now it appears pretty ordinary.

[Blwe_torch]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

I did not know we were still in the 70's.

Someone should tell Gavaskar and Blwe that things in the world have changed quite a bit since the 70's.

Per blwe ... someone with hands on experience of discrimination in the 30's should be able to comment about the current situation in the world.

When will these people stuck in the past learn that the world does move on around you!

 
what a pathetic joke coming from a certified ol' stick in the mud!

Yeah...the world move on around you.....and you remain the ol' stick in the mud!

[kban1]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

I did not know we were still in the 70's.

Someone should tell Gavaskar and Blwe that things in the world have changed quite a bit since the 70's.

Per blwe ... someone with hands on experience of discrimination in the 30's should be able to comment about the current situation in the world.

When will these people stuck in the past learn that the world does move on around you!

And you believe we live in a society where white privelege and white discrimination dont exist ?

[Cover Point]

He he ...nowadays, we address Gavaskar as Sunil "I See Racists" Gavaskar

And Radhakrishnan Sreenivasan is really a pain, especially the way he overemphasises every syllable and spouts his cliched lines ....he should be called Radhakrishnan "Well, that is the key really, isn't it" Sreenivasan.

Gavaskar is having first hand experience of racist attitude of the Eng/ Aus members of ICC........so he may be knowing, what he is talking.

I did not know we were still in the 70's.

Someone should tell Gavaskar and Blwe that things in the world have changed quite a bit since the 70's.

Per blwe ... someone with hands on experience of discrimination in the 30's should be able to comment about the current situation in the world.

When will these people stuck in the past learn that the world does move on around you!

And you believe we live in a society where white privelege and white discrimination dont exist ?

the definitions have changed. What used to go on in the 60's and 70's does not happen now. Does it mean that there are no racists in the world? Never said that. There are plenty of them (including a huge number in India). BUT the world has definitely changed for the better.

let me say it this way, on a scale of of 1-10 if racism was at 9 in the 60's and 70's .... it will be at around 4 today.

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

Indians also have a huge chip on their shoulder. Anything bad happening to them is due to racism. Two guys walk in to get a job with same level of education. One is dressed poorly, has poor communication, talks only about money and what THEY want. Other is a better communicator, smartly dressed and is more politically savvy (part of being a good communicator). Who would get the job? If the poor communicator happens to be Indian, they would cry RACISM RACISM first and think about what they can do differently NEVER!

[kban1]

let me say it this way, on a scale of of 1-10 if racism was at 9 in the 60's and 70's .... it will be at around 4 today.

"around 7.5 today" -- there, I corrected your post

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

yes, there are many Indians who are racists. But, no, not bigger racists by any stretch.

More than that, we or any other community have / has not institutionalized racism through a combination of imposing one set of monolithic values on culture, norm, systems, hierarchy.

To set that agenda, you need power, you need money and you need the influence to set those in motion. For all the claim of India or any other non white country's new found economic strength, this is new and miniscule (non pervasive) to effect institutional changes to practices that were put in place years ago in the nascent stages and have been continued with --unquestioned and unexamined --over numerous years, to the point where a significant number of those who perpetuate the institutionalized policies of discrimination are not even consciously aware of what they are perpetuating or the impact thereof.

What you (for that matter most) dont take into account is that racism exists on 2 levels -- the personal level, and the institutional level. The moment you have narrowed it down to just the personal acts of a few people, you have lost focus on the vast majority of it. Because then its down to a few bad individuals, the spotlight (if ever there was one) has moved away from the more pervasive, more demeaning, more corrosive, omnipresent and omnipotent institutional bias which benefits only one group.

Indians also have a huge chip on their shoulder.

Every minority community has that and justifiably so. It may not be justifiable on each and every occasion, but the point is that for the minority groups, they face small and large instances of so many of these incidents that the thought always lurks in their mind -- was this racist or was it just within the normal course of life. Its a question minority communities are bound to ask (even if only in their mind) because the set of circumstances forces that question.

These are the multitude of incidents a majority person does not have to deal with. The number of incidents are low, there is absence of history and basis, which then precludes the "what if" question as far as they are concerned.

Anything bad happening to them is due to racism. Two guys walk in to get a job with same level of education. One is dressed poorly, has poor communication, talks only about money and what THEY want. Other is a better communicator, smartly dressed and is more politically savvy (part of being a good communicator). Who would get the job? If the poor communicator happens to be Indian, they would cry RACISM RACISM first and think about what they can do differently NEVER!

How about having two comparably qualified individuals walk into a job and the majority candidate getting that job ? Why not use a more relevant example ?

or do you automatically assume that the majority candidate is articulate and professional and the Indian (minority) not so ?

I dont deny that the victim mentality exists, but it exists because there is sufficient reason for it to exist. One can and should ask them to introspect but only after making sure that the very existence of factors that give rise to an environment that denies such introspection do not exist.

Your blame the victim tack while giving the majority a wide berth is surprising.

[Cover Point]

let me say it this way, on a scale of of 1-10 if racism was at 9 in the 60's and 70's .... it will be at around 4 today.


"around 7.5 today" -- there, I corrected your post

that i guess then ends the argument. We must be living in different world(s) I guess.

Heck, I have seen a HUGE change in racist attitudes since the early 90's when I came to the US to now. Taking it back another 20-30 years is MUCH MORE significant.

[vincent]

I think we have here an arguement about racism in the US. I agree that it has improved significantly since the 60ies (more than just 1.5 points) when blacks were not allowed to use the same facilities (including a bench in the park or a water fountain which would say 'for whites only') as the white ones apart from other discriminations.

Today however, racism persists in other countries especially in Eastern Europe. Under communism, these countries were rather well behaved due to the strict rules of the government. Today in countries like Russia the people (especially students) from the colored world are treated like dirt. From othet East European countries, the Gypsies (known now as Romers), who were living there for centuries, are driven away to Western Europe where they are living as beggars.

On the other hand I do agree with CP that India should be the last one to cry racism. In India white skin is adored. Even in the matrimonial ads one can find words like "... looking for a bride with fair skin....".
We should differentiate between "racism" related to color of the skin (where India scores very low) and the one related to nationality and economic status.

[flute]

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

CP, which dreamy world are you in ? this is total BS, do you think there is institutionalised, class/race based  bias discrimination in India based on color?

Indians culturally prefer fairer skin thru out length and breadth of India, that has nothing to do with treating people with darker skin much much worse.  We have myriad other forms of discirmination based on caste, religion, retgion, language etc. but nope nothing based on skin color. Indians surprisingly do not have a race consciousness based on skin color. If we did, when India was so full of itself before Islamic period, we would have come up with brown is beautiful and superior type of theories. We are so divided amongst ourselves, based on all other types of divisions, we simply never thought about it. Also, there is simply no way to say dark skinned are lower caste and fair skinned are upper castes  to institutionlize that color based discrimination.

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

[kban1]

let me say it this way, on a scale of of 1-10 if racism was at 9 in the 60's and 70's .... it will be at around 4 today.


"around 7.5 today" -- there, I corrected your post

that i guess then ends the argument. We must be living in different world(s) I guess.

Heck, I have seen a HUGE change in racist attitudes since the early 90's when I came to the US to now. Taking it back another 20-30 years is MUCH MORE significant.

Please read the rest of my post

You (and Vincent, as well) are again concentrating on the individual racism or racist behavior component as opposed to the more pervasive and more damaging institutional component.

While the individual component has improved, it hasnt improved as much as either of you guys claim either. Its simply been driven underground --as in, by virtue of laws in place, by visrtue of the change in societal norms of what is or isnt acceptable, and what is or isnt stigmatized, overt opinion has disappeared, driven underneath the stratum.

[ruchir]

let me say it this way, on a scale of of 1-10 if racism was at 9 in the 60's and 70's .... it will be at around 4 today.

"around 7.5 today" -- there, I corrected your post

Disagree. More so, post-Obama. I would, however, like to know why you think racism still exists at the scale of 7.5? Any tangible reasons or just personal preferences?

yes, there are many Indians who are racists. But, no, not bigger racists by any stretch.

Again, in today's time (which is under discussion) what makes you think Indians aren't the biggest racists? Isn't casteism a form of racism? Both are forms of discrimination based on reasons beyond one's control. Both are equally harmful. From what I know, casteism is very prevalent in India. Probably there is more caste based discrimination in India than there is skin based discrimination anywhere in the world.

More than that, we or any other community have / has not institutionalized racism through a combination of imposing one set of monolithic values on culture, norm, systems, hierarchy.

How do you define institutionalization of racism? Is it something done by govt of a nation? If so, how is racism institutionalized in any white country? In not, what do you call Sonia once being stopped from entering Tirupati?

To set that agenda, you need power, you need money and you need the influence to set those in motion. For all the claim of India or any other non white country's new found economic strength, this is new and miniscule (non pervasive) to effect institutional changes to practices that were put in place years ago in the nascent stages and have been continued with --unquestioned and unexamined --over numerous years, to the point where a significant number of those who perpetuate the institutionalized policies of discrimination are not even consciously aware of what they are perpetuating or the impact thereof.

Can you again, elaborate in your use of "institutional"? How is racism institutional in today's time in any white country?

Have you heard of Affirmative Action? Civil Rights? Amendments 13, 14, 15? Is that all institutional racism?

What you (for that matter most) dont take into account is that racism exists on 2 levels -- the personal level, and the institutional level. The moment you have narrowed it down to just the personal acts of a few people, you have lost focus on the vast majority of it. Because then its down to a few bad individuals, the spotlight (if ever there was one) has moved away from the more pervasive, more demeaning, more corrosive, omnipresent and omnipotent institutional bias which benefits only one group.

Can you please tell us how is racism existing in white countries at an institutional level?

Every minority community has that and justifiably so. It may not be justifiable on each and every occasion, but the point is that for the minority groups, they face small and large instances of so many of these incidents that the thought always lurks in their mind -- was this racist or was it just within the normal course of life. Its a question minority communities are bound to ask (even if only in their mind) because the set of circumstances forces that question.

These are the multitude of incidents a majority person does not have to deal with. The number of incidents are low, there is absence of history and basis, which then precludes the "what if" question as far as they are concerned.

Will there come a time, ever, where minorities can go beyond this knee-jerk reaction of labeling the other person as racist because he did not agree with them or did not do what they wanted? In your estimation how much more long will it take for minorities to get to that stage? 200 years? 500 years? Never?

How about having two comparably qualified individuals walk into a job and the majority candidate getting that job ? Why not use a more relevant example ?

or do you automatically assume that the majority candidate is articulate and professional and the Indian (minority) not so ?

Are you working for a white employer or a minority employer? Just curious to know what you think about yourself? Were you hired because you are a minority (irrespective of your skills) or were you hired because of your skills (irrespective of anything else)?

I dont deny that the victim mentality exists, but it exists because there is sufficient reason for it to exist. One can and should ask them to introspect but only after making sure that the very existence of factors that give rise to an environment that denies such introspection do not exist.

Your blame the victim tack while giving the majority a wide berth is surprising.

So what should be the best action? Shoot first and then talk? First label the other person as a racist and then go into the introspection mode and try to find out what the other person really is? IMO the best action if to first look at yourself. If I was not selected in a job, then I should first see if I was qualified enough or not. If I was, then I should see how was the person who was selected. Better than me? Same? Worse? If it is the last, then I have a legitimate claim of racism, rather than beginning with racism claim.

[ruchir]

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

In that case you probably haven't seen Milla Jovovich. Flawless skin, man...

[flute]

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

In that case you probably haven't seen Milla Jovovich. Flawless skin, man...

I did..it more an exception though

[kban1]

Disagree. More so, post-Obama. I would, however, like to know why you think racism still exists at the scale of 7.5? Any tangible reasons or just personal preferences?

Assessment was based on the prevalence of wide spread institutional bias.

Again, in today's time (which is under discussion) what makes you think Indians aren't the biggest racists? Isn't casteism a form of racism? Both are forms of discrimination based on reasons beyond one's control. Both are equally harmful. From what I know, casteism is very prevalent in India. Probably there is more caste based discrimination in India than there is skin based discrimination anywhere in the world.

My comments were in context of minority experiences in majority white countries, specifically US.

Casteism is discrimination and needs to be condemned in the same terms as racism is. It is equally deplorable.

How do you define institutionalization of racism? Is it something done by govt of a nation? If so, how is racism institutionalized in any white country?

Govt policies, administration of programs, taxation policies, development schemes
Business enterprises and the culture and rules prevalent therein
Cultural norms, value judgments, overall standards in general

In not, what do you call Sonia once being stopped from entering Tirupati?

Not familiar with the incident.

If based on skin color, then same condemnation is appropriate.
if based on religion, then religious bigotry deserves the same scorn.

Can you again, elaborate in your use of "institutional"? How is racism institutional in today's time in any white country?

Have you heard of Affirmative Action? Civil Rights? Amendments 13, 14, 15? Is that all institutional racism?

and

Can you please tell us how is racism existing in white countries at an institutional level?

Please read a few books on the subject matter of "White privelege" in the US. Google it. In fact, there is a book by that very name.

It will provide you with much more detail about the state of race and its treatment in the US (historical and existing) than I could.

It is compelling, enlightening, and must reading.

Will there come a time, ever, where minorities can go beyond this knee-jerk reaction of labeling the other person as racist because he did not agree with them or did not do what they wanted? In your estimation how much more long will it take for minorities to get to that stage? 200 years? 500 years? Never?

This is a weird proposition --you deem all such reactions to be knee jerk reactions and then ask when they will end ?

Shouldnt you find out about the issues before resorting to labeling ?

Shouldnt you be asking the same question of the other side ?

Are you working for a white employer or a minority employer? Just curious to know what you think about yourself? Were you hired because you are a minority (irrespective of your skills) or were you hired because of your skills (irrespective of anything else)?

What I think of myself is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

So what should be the best action? Shoot first and then talk? First label the other person as a racist and then go into the introspection mode and try to find out what the other person really is? IMO the best action if to first look at yourself. If I was not selected in a job, then I should first see if I was qualified enough or not. If I was, then I should see how was the person who was selected. Better than me? Same? Worse? If it is the last, then I have a legitimate claim of racism, rather than beginning with racism claim.

Agree --that a claim of racism should be made after evaluating other possibilities. But we assume too often that the introspection has not been done when in reality it has been and we as observers sit and pass judgment about it being a knee jerk reaction.

My comment was in the context of the fact that we are too quick to judge the victim and just as willing or quick to overlook the other side.

[ruchir]

Disagree. More so, post-Obama. I would, however, like to know why you think racism still exists at the scale of 7.5? Any tangible reasons or just personal preferences?

Assessment was based on the prevalence of wide spread institutional bias.

Please see the question below.

Again, in today's time (which is under discussion) what makes you think Indians aren't the biggest racists? Isn't casteism a form of racism? Both are forms of discrimination based on reasons beyond one's control. Both are equally harmful. From what I know, casteism is very prevalent in India. Probably there is more caste based discrimination in India than there is skin based discrimination anywhere in the world.

My comments were in context of minority experiences in majority white countries, specifically US.

Casteism is discrimination and needs to be condemned in the same terms as racism is. It is equally deplorable.

Just to remind you, I have asked questions about institutionalized racism that you say exists in US. I am asking below, how and where it exists in USA?

How do you define institutionalization of racism? Is it something done by govt of a nation? If so, how is racism institutionalized in any white country?

Govt policies, administration of programs, taxation policies, development schemes
Business enterprises and the culture and rules prevalent therein
Cultural norms, value judgments, overall standards in general

Can you please tell us how is racism existing in white countries at an institutional level?

Please read a few books on the subject matter of "White privelege" in the US. Google it. In fact, there is a book by that very name.

It will provide you with much more detail about the state of race and its treatment in the US (historical and existing) than I could.

It is compelling, enlightening, and must reading.

I understand "White Privilege". And books are written to depict author's POV, to which I may not agree.

My question was regarding "institutionalizing" racism in US. So please let me know, exactly what govt policies, administered programs, taxes, development schemes, businesses, cultural programs, rules exist in USA that hint in favor of racism?

Again, I am talking about today, not yesteryears. That's what Aunty too was pointing at. Today, racial discrimination is illegal in USA. So please explain how it is institutionalized. Please don't refer any books to me. They are immaterial because we are talking about institutionalized racism, that you say exist in USA. If it does, then it should be very very easy for you to point out how, instead of referring books.

Will there come a time, ever, where minorities can go beyond this knee-jerk reaction of labeling the other person as racist because he did not agree with them or did not do what they wanted? In your estimation how much more long will it take for minorities to get to that stage? 200 years? 500 years? Never?

This is a weird proposition --you deem all such reactions to be knee jerk reactions and then ask when they will end ?

Shouldnt you find out about the issues before resorting to labeling ?

Shouldnt you be asking the same question of the other side ?

I should and I do, that's why you will hardly find me crying racism in my comments, unlike you who are clearly saying that minorities are justified in saying all the time that something bad happen to them because of racism.

the thought always lurks in their mind -- was this racist or was it just within the normal course of life.

What I am saying is will minorities ever ever get out of this mindset? Should they not at least try to get beyond racism? You are suggesting (from what I see) that it will be okay for them to perennially think of racism every time they don't get what they want. I think that's why you didn't say how long it should take IYO to get beyond constant thought of racism.

Are you working for a white employer or a minority employer? Just curious to know what you think about yourself? Were you hired because you are a minority (irrespective of your skills) or were you hired because of your skills (irrespective of anything else)?

What I think of myself is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It may be irrelevant to you, but it is very important for me. I am trying to understand your mentality. What do you think of those with whom you work. After all you are working here, right? You didn't agree with Aunty's example, so I thought of asking you how do you think you got your job? Was any racial component involved in it? Did you get your job because your boss thought not selecting you would make him look like a racist?

Agree --that a claim of racism should be made after evaluating other possibilities. But we assume too often that the introspection has not been done when in reality it has been and we as observers sit and pass judgment about it being a knee jerk reaction.

My comment was in the context of the fact that we are too quick to judge the victim and just as willing or quick to overlook the other side.

And I'm saying that sometimes we are too quick in judging that something happened because of racism, rather than any other reason.

White cop stopped me... because of racism.
I didn't get the job... because of racism.
I didn't get raise/promotion... because of racism.

These are the most common examples I hear of.





Anyway, my reason of entering this discussion was that I agree with Aunty that India might be more racist than USA. I don't limit racism to simply discrimination based on skin. I consider it same as religion or caste or financial standing based discrimination. This discrimination is present in just about every field in India, but you can't say the same about USA. In USA whites actually voted for a black guy. Just a thought.....

[Cover Point]

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

CP, which dreamy world are you in ? this is total BS, do you think there is institutionalised, class/race based  bias discrimination in India based on color?

Indians culturally prefer fairer skin thru out length and breadth of India, that has nothing to do with treating people with darker skin much much worse.  We have myriad other forms of discirmination based on caste, religion, retgion, language etc. but nope nothing based on skin color. Indians surprisingly do not have a race consciousness based on skin color. If we did, when India was so full of itself before Islamic period, we would have come up with brown is beautiful and superior type of theories. We are so divided amongst ourselves, based on all other types of divisions, we simply never thought about it. Also, there is simply no way to say dark skinned are lower caste and fair skinned are upper castes  to institutionlize that color based discrimination.

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

ever seen an Indian guy or girl with a black man/woman? If you did, check with his/her family how they feel. Indians are a lot LESS accepting of blacks than whites or any other race. There was a movie too about it (I saw a trailer or something of that movie).

On the institutionalized discrimination, how is it institutionalized here in the US?

[kban1]

I understand "White Privilege". And books are written to depict author's POV, to which I may not agree.

At least read before you pass judgment

My question was regarding "institutionalizing" racism in US. So please let me know, exactly what govt policies, administered programs, taxes, development schemes, businesses, cultural programs, rules exist in USA that hint in favor of racism?

Please read. I am being honest --this is too complex and too detailed an issue for me to explain to you in a few lines or paragraphs.

You once said, you are willing to find out. I am directing you to the sources.

Again, I am talking about today, not yesteryears. That's what Aunty too was pointing at. Today, racial discrimination is illegal in USA. So please explain how it is institutionalized. Please don't refer any books to me. They are immaterial because we are talking about institutionalized racism, that you say exist in USA. If it does, then it should be very very easy for you to point out how, instead of referring books.

The today and the yesteryears are in many ways a continuum, especially from an institutional basis. What was set in motion in the past shapes today because those effects permeate through, and are further exacerbated by the furtherance of the same policies (sometimes unknowingly) at present. Knowingly or unknowingly, the effect remains the same.

I know you are not going to like this, but some of these well documented books or collections provide lot more detail about these issues.

And racism on a personal level is lesser today (even I acknowledged that) but its not where you or CP peg it to be. Overt attitudes have just disappeared, doesnt mean the phenomenon does not exist.

I should and I do, that's why you will hardly find me crying racism in my comments, unlike you who are clearly saying that minorities are justified in saying all the time that something bad happen to them because of racism.

What I am saying is will minorities ever ever get out of this mindset? Should they not at least try to get beyond racism? You are suggesting (from what I see) that it will be okay for them to perennially think of racism every time they don't get what they want. I think that's why you didn't say how long it should take IYO to get beyond constant thought of racism.

I am not saying minorities are justified in all that they say. I am saying that a lot of what  they say has roots in reality.

Whether they will get out of this mindset is largely dependent on whether they feel that the situation has improved.

And no, i didnt say that its ok for them to cry racism everytime they dont get what they want. I said when they have been discriminated against several times, it is natural for that thought to strike them.

Whether it was actually racism should be dependent on an evaluation of the circumstances concerned by people who know of the case, not by arm chair critics passing judgment everytime they see a minority person say that racism may have been a factor.

It may be irrelevant to you, but it is very important for me. I am trying to understand your mentality. What do you think of those with whom you work. After all you are working here, right? You didn't agree with Aunty's example, so I thought of asking you how do you think you got your job? Was any racial component involved in it? Did you get your job because your boss thought not selecting you would make him look like a racist?

What has my mentality got to do with anything in this ?

What if I worked for a majority corporation ? How does that change anything ?

What if I worked for a minority corporation ? How will that change anything ?

And I'm saying that sometimes we are too quick in judging that something happened because of racism, rather than any other reason.

White cop stopped me... because of racism.
I didn't get the job... because of racism.
I didn't get raise/promotion... because of racism.

These are the most common examples I hear of.

maybe you are right.

But did you ask them ever why they thought so ? Could there have been a legitimate issue ? Or was it all playing the victim ?

Just hearing a claim and making a judgment might not be the way to go.

Anyway, my reason of entering this discussion was that I agree with Aunty that India might be more racist than USA. I don't limit racism to simply discrimination based on skin. I consider it same as religion or caste or financial standing based discrimination. This discrimination is present in just about every field in India, but you can't say the same about USA. In USA whites actually voted for a black guy. Just a thought.....

I didnt disagree that there isn't discrimination in India.

And I remain opposed to all forms of discrimination.

[Cover Point]

Exactly. Racism is a broad term in my mind and covers caste, creed and religion based discrimination.

Indians are a lot more racist. North Indians even more so! We identify people more as Baniya, Shatriya, Bong, Panju, Marathi, Gangulian etc. And for us any "kallu" is terrible.

There will be some racists in the US but a lot of people have moved on. Institutional racism in the US is a joke! Infact, there is reverse discrimination. If you are a minority it is MUCH easier to get state contracts (here in Illinois atleast). A lot of people have blacks on their board in positions just to fill up the numbers. So from an institutional perspective there is very little discrimination against minorities.

Now, you can say money has historically been with the whites. But what do you want? Take that money and redistribute the wealth? Does a black man (or an Indian for that matter) have the same chance of getting ahead as a white guy? Based on the number of Indians in successful positions including being presidents of multinational companies like Pepsi I would say heck yeah.

On average Indians are richer than whites. Same is true with the japanese. Its a just reward for Indians being better educated. We are successful DESPITE being poorer communicators (relatively speaking ... and on average) than a comparable white person.

I have interviewed hundreds of candidates in my current job. On average I find that whites come across more personable and better communicators in their interviews while Indians would come across ok technically but poorer in communications. This obviously varies by their education levels.

Usually graduates from top US universities irrespective of race come across as excellent communicators. It is when you are looking at the next level an average school graduate (or person who did not go to school in the US) vs an average school graduate from the US, you find that most Americans (whites) are just better communicators and more personable.

And this chip on the shoulder of looking for reasons to be unhappy and looking for faults does not help either. (just as it never helped the gangulians either)

[feverpitch]

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

CP, which dreamy world are you in ? this is total BS, do you think there is institutionalised, class/race based  bias discrimination in India based on color?

Indians culturally prefer fairer skin thru out length and breadth of India, that has nothing to do with treating people with darker skin much much worse.  We have myriad other forms of discirmination based on caste, religion, retgion, language etc. but nope nothing based on skin color. Indians surprisingly do not have a race consciousness based on skin color. If we did, when India was so full of itself before Islamic period, we would have come up with brown is beautiful and superior type of theories. We are so divided amongst ourselves, based on all other types of divisions, we simply never thought about it. Also, there is simply no way to say dark skinned are lower caste and fair skinned are upper castes  to institutionlize that color based discrimination.

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

ever seen an Indian guy or girl with a black man/woman? If you did, check with his/her family how they feel. Indians are a lot LESS accepting of blacks than whites or any other race. There was a movie too about it (I saw a trailer or something of that movie).

On the institutionalized discrimination, how is it institutionalized here in the US?

Stranger than fiction!

Once again, I find myself on the same side as CP. Maybe I need to rethink my political affiliations!

Desis don't carry the historical baggage that whites do regarding racism. So we can be far more obnoxious without fear of recriminations, IMHO. Besides, we as a nation are completely beholden to the white skin. And this feeling is not just skin deep. Perhaps because deep down, we want to be like them. So it's rather easy for us to adopt and adapt to dubious white racist/discriminatory customs. Of course if hip-hop is vetted by whites and passed down to us, we have no problem in internalising it -- misogyny, thuggish behaviour as 'kewl', nihilism regressive culture and all... ... ...

We the desis are perfect monkeys.

[kban1]

Desis don't carry the historical baggage that whites do regarding racism. So we can be far more obnoxious without fear of recriminations, IMHO. Besides, we as a nation are completely beholden to the white skin. And this feeling is not just skin deep. Perhaps because deep down, we want to be like them. So it's rather easy for us to adopt and adapt to dubious white racist/discriminatory customs. Of course if hip-hop is vetted by whites and passed down to us, we have no problem in internalising it -- misogyny, thuggish behaviour as 'kewl', nihilism regressive culture and all... ... ...

We the desis are perfect monkeys.

   

[vincent]

Sorry to disrupt this interesting side debate. But one question I would have for Harsha Bhogle is, "why did Dwayne Bravo's corporate jet need a second refuelling in Brazil? Jamaica is closer to Portugal than Brazil..."

[Cover Point]

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

CP, which dreamy world are you in ? this is total BS, do you think there is institutionalised, class/race based  bias discrimination in India based on color?

Indians culturally prefer fairer skin thru out length and breadth of India, that has nothing to do with treating people with darker skin much much worse.  We have myriad other forms of discirmination based on caste, religion, retgion, language etc. but nope nothing based on skin color. Indians surprisingly do not have a race consciousness based on skin color. If we did, when India was so full of itself before Islamic period, we would have come up with brown is beautiful and superior type of theories. We are so divided amongst ourselves, based on all other types of divisions, we simply never thought about it. Also, there is simply no way to say dark skinned are lower caste and fair skinned are upper castes  to institutionlize that color based discrimination.

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

ever seen an Indian guy or girl with a black man/woman? If you did, check with his/her family how they feel. Indians are a lot LESS accepting of blacks than whites or any other race. There was a movie too about it (I saw a trailer or something of that movie).

On the institutionalized discrimination, how is it institutionalized here in the US?

Stranger than fiction!

Once again, I find myself on the same side as CP. Maybe I need to rethink my political affiliations!

Desis don't carry the historical baggage that whites do regarding racism. So we can be far more obnoxious without fear of recriminations, IMHO. Besides, we as a nation are completely beholden to the white skin. And this feeling is not just skin deep. Perhaps because deep down, we want to be like them. So it's rather easy for us to adopt and adapt to dubious white racist/discriminatory customs. Of course if hip-hop is vetted by whites and passed down to us, we have no problem in internalising it -- misogyny, thuggish behaviour as 'kewl', nihilism regressive culture and all... ... ...

We the desis are perfect monkeys.

welcome to the sane side

I have a dream. I have a dream that one day all gangulians can be saved and can be converted over to the sane side of the debate. I have a dream that some day I can walk in the middle of the gangulians and proudly raise my head and see these gangulians not going crazy in the name of Ganguly or chappel. I have a dream ...

[flute]

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

CP, which dreamy world are you in ? this is total BS, do you think there is institutionalised, class/race based  bias discrimination in India based on color?

Indians culturally prefer fairer skin thru out length and breadth of India, that has nothing to do with treating people with darker skin much much worse.  We have myriad other forms of discirmination based on caste, religion, retgion, language etc. but nope nothing based on skin color. Indians surprisingly do not have a race consciousness based on skin color. If we did, when India was so full of itself before Islamic period, we would have come up with brown is beautiful and superior type of theories. We are so divided amongst ourselves, based on all other types of divisions, we simply never thought about it. Also, there is simply no way to say dark skinned are lower caste and fair skinned are upper castes  to institutionlize that color based discrimination.

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

ever seen an Indian guy or girl with a black man/woman? If you did, check with his/her family how they feel. Indians are a lot LESS accepting of blacks than whites or any other race. There was a movie too about it (I saw a trailer or something of that movie).

On the institutionalized discrimination, how is it institutionalized here in the US?

I am with you if you are talking about Indian attitudes towards blacks. I thought you were suggesting that within Indians we discriminate based on dark skinned ones and fair skinned ones.

[sudzz]

Now for a more controversial opinion. I believe Indians are more and bigger racists than most whites. Indians treat anyone with a darker skin than them MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than TODAY's whites treat anyone.

CP, which dreamy world are you in ? this is total BS, do you think there is institutionalised, class/race based  bias discrimination in India based on color?

Indians culturally prefer fairer skin thru out length and breadth of India, that has nothing to do with treating people with darker skin much much worse.  We have myriad other forms of discirmination based on caste, religion, retgion, language etc. but nope nothing based on skin color. Indians surprisingly do not have a race consciousness based on skin color. If we did, when India was so full of itself before Islamic period, we would have come up with brown is beautiful and superior type of theories. We are so divided amongst ourselves, based on all other types of divisions, we simply never thought about it. Also, there is simply no way to say dark skinned are lower caste and fair skinned are upper castes  to institutionlize that color based discrimination.

on a personal note, I too prefer fair skinned beauties. A fair skinned indian beauty appeals more to me than any white skinned lass. Indian fair skin is more beautiful without blemishes compared to whites IMO.

ever seen an Indian guy or girl with a black man/woman? If you did, check with his/her family how they feel. Indians are a lot LESS accepting of blacks than whites or any other race. There was a movie too about it (I saw a trailer or something of that movie).

On the institutionalized discrimination, how is it institutionalized here in the US?

I am with you if you are talking about Indian attitudes towards blacks. I thought you were suggesting that within Indians we discriminate based on dark skinned ones and fair skinned ones.

If you think Indians don't discriminate on skin colour just hear Mrs Marwah tell her children arre kya "kaale" madraasion ke tarah haath se khaate ho Or Mrs Khatri tell neighbours arre unki bahu toh south Indian ki tarak dark hai etc.

Mr Flute if you really think Indians don't discriminate on the basis of colour then you are gravely mistaken.