You hate all white people because some white people hate all black people, because of the actions of some black people.
I don’t know about Indians in India but I have known some Indians in America who are pretty racist. The Chinese and Koreans are often very racist against whites, blacks, and each other; the Japanese can also be quite racist. There is a lot of racism against black African immigrants in Japan as well as black American servicemen stationed there. The Japanese are, of course, also notoriously racist towards the Chinese and the Koreans. And they have also historically been bigoted against Europeans; the depictions of white sailors and traders, the first Europeans that the Japanese ever encountered, from several hundred years ago, depict them as long-nosed, hairy demons. And a lot of African tribes are massacring each other right as we speak, over ethnic and tribal differences.
So, no, I do not think that the British, or “Europeans” (as Der Trihs said) are responsible for racism.
Why does the existence of this site make you hate humans?
Maybe he’s a Cylon?
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/blog/post/697780/battlestar-galactica-changes-the-un-charter.html
More exciting was Olmos’ announcement about his show’s influence on the United Nations, which has officially changed its charter after meeting with the Battlestar Galactica stars over human rights last March. Per Olmos, the UN will no longer use the word “race” as a cultural determinant; instead, we will all be considered a part of one race: humans (unless you’re a Cylon).
The caste system has nothing to do with race. It’s a different sort of prejudice.
There is a strong (though thankfully weakening) preference in India (and the rest of South Asia) for fair-skinned people. Parents look for light-skinned brides for their sons, people with fair skin make more money, and so on. You can read about it here.
This is a direct result of the British presence in India - they preferred lighter-skinned Indians, too. Plus, the British attempted to divide the people using the theory that light-skinned Indians are descended from Aryan (ie., Caucasian) stock, while dark-skinned people are “natives”. It isn’t true, but a lot of people believed it, and a lot still believe it.
I live in St Louis too, in a mixed neighborhood. And I have to tell you, it’s a struggle some days to resist the insidious pull of racism.
I grew up in a very progressive environment. Very much in touch with lefty social ideals among my parents’ and my peer groups. Growing up in Canada, I was aware of problems with First Nations people. (My neighbor’s son married a First Nations woman, and he got caught up in the culture of welfare and alcoholism. His parents ended up raising his kids because of it.) But I always believed that this was an outcome of history and some nasty politics in the past, and that given a fair chance, a First Nation’s person could succeed as well as anyone, and was as worthwhile and worthy of respect as anyone. (Case in point, my neighbor’s grandson is a terrific young man, raised off the reservation with grandparents who gave him all the love, support, and opportunity he needed.)
I carried this same attitude with me when I moved to the States and ended up in St Louis. I felt like African Americans had a raw deal, and that various social issues and frictions with Whites stemmed from their terrible treatment throughout this history of this country. Much of the problem also stems from economic inequality and class differences. Nevertheless, given a fighting chance, any African American child can grow up to be a successful, upstanding citizen. I still believe this.
But damn. Living in this neighborhood pushes my buttons hard. What with the gun fire, and graffiti, and drug deals, and petty thievery, and littering, and shouting matches at night, and toddlers left unattended along a busy street, and honking the horn incessantly rather than knocking on the door, etc., etc. You start to look at people differently when you see certain types of behavior over and over again. Especially when this behavior is correlated over and over again with a particular skin color. My reptile brain kicks in, and it’s hard not to let the anger and frustration lure me to racist thoughts. I hate it. I know better. But still…
White flight is looking better and better. Honestly, it is. I have a toddler. His safety becomes paramount – over and above our love for the city and our desire to be a part of the urban renewal that’s going on. A kind of renewal that is not replacing, but joining with people of various races and economic means. On one hand I value the mix, but more and more I’m getting worn down by the rougher side of things. I’m losing my perspective. It’s sad, though, to think that I might have to move to a lily white suburb in order to keep from turning into a raging racist.
I assumed he meant the human race.
That, or the fucking Tour de France.
Bit unfair to ascribe racism to “the actions of some black people”. What have they done to deserve it?
Yup. My mother has lived in the West for nearly her entire adult life, and she doesn’t trust black people and thinks Jews are responsible for half the world’s wars. :rolleyes:
Well, you’re not talking about racism, really. You’re talking about socioeconomic prejudice. It sounds like you live in a shitty neighborhood; I doubt you’d like your neighbors much better if you lived in a trailer park in a lily-white Alabama town. Right?
I find the notion that the British introduced light-skin preference into India ludicrous.
Based on… your knowledge of Indian history and custom? Your sociology degree? Your personal preference for white people?
I suppose if the trailer park denizens were behaving the same way people do in our neighborhood then, yes, I wouldn’t care for them. It’s true. However, because socioeconomic status is so strongly correlated with race in this neighborhood, I really am starting to view things through a racist lens. I see a person with African American physical characteristics and a series of negative preconceptions spring to mind. How is that not racist?
I used to sometimes watch Indian TV shows and movies that would come on the local foreign-language TV channel; I always noticed how white everyone always looked, especially in the song-and-dance type numbers. They all looked like Spaniards. Similarly, sometimes the Mexican news would come on, and the anchormen always looked completely European.
Oh, alright, you’re racist. Here’s your hood.
Indian film and television personalities bleach their skin (well, technically, they bleach the hair on their skin) to appear fairer.
Based on that it sounds like a bunch of shit you just made up.
Thanks. I’d prefer a toaster, but this will do.
And why would I do that, exactly? In any case, it’s a bunch of shit somebody else made up.
To be fair, that part of the article is pretty poorly cited. I am kinda curious to know more myself, as I disagree with the quote slightly. I think the “colorism” of India is something that has been there BEFORE the British imperialism, and while they certainly may have perpetuated to it, I find it dubious that blaming the British alone for the colorism seen in India would be deflecting the responsibility of India’s own biases and multiple views and traditions itself. Basically, I think the preference was there before the British came along, but having the British there certainly didn’t help to skew things back towards the norm.
To blame it all on the British though is just foolish and biased.
That said- I totally agree with you on the Preference. There is a total preference for the fair-skinned in India and all things lighter, but then again that’s exactly why you have the opposites in the Gods such as Kali, Shiva, and Krishna all described as darker in skin color /nature, (or in the case of Krishna “black” by his very name). Why single out these deities while others were not depicted as darkly if there was no mixing of color? Same with the ancient art- there are plenty of depictions of females as being lighter skinned than males- but there are images of dark and light skinned beings in the art- showing that even then India wasn’t a homogeneous group of colored people. However, it seems more often than not the female goddesses are depicted as faired-skinned, with Kali being the exception to that rule than her style being the Norm.
Now a lot of the current trends (Bollywood and such) could be certainly attributed to British influences, but I do think that there may have been a deeper and longer standing bias in Hindu cultures just in skin color and tone that’s been there before the British/Muslim rule.
There are multiple groups of Indians in India, and plenty of diversity, but I think it’s something that’s been ingrained into Indian culture long before the British came, perhaps tribal preferences for those that were similar vs. those that weren’t to create a caste-like system which slowly evolved into a larger tradition.
But I certainly cannot say that I am well read on the literature, but I can say it’s certainly a more complex issue than the idea that your quote seems to paint it as being an invention of the British rule. So if you have better information on the (very interesting) subject, I would love to read up on it sometime- especially if you have anything explaining Colorism in regards to its presence/absence in the Vedic Traditions of India (as that sounds very cool to learn about).
You left out the ‘Muslim’ part. You know those ‘Aryan’ rulers you were dismissing the relevance of.
What’s sad is that you think that the only way to avoid the ugliness of your current neighborhood is to move to a lily-white one. Why not move to an ethnically-mixed neighborhood that has a higher socioeconomic status, or a lower crime rate, or better control of gang and drug problems. Associating the behavior you’re seeing in your neighborhood only with the ethnicity of your neighbors, and assuming that any African-American or mixed neighborhood is going to have the same problems is where your thinking becomes racist.