This sickens me, regardless of any possible explanation.
When it comes right down to it, though, I think this nails it. They want someone who is accustomed to their habitual living circumstances and is going to go along or join in on how they do things, when it comes to food or other things.
They don’t want to have to constantly explain their food rules or their names or arranged marriages. They don’t want to have to explain why their parents feel free to “drop in” without notice and treat their dorm/apartment like its their own house. Or why, prior to such a visit, they have to go through a paroxysm of hiding anything that might offend their parents. They want roommates who aren’t going to scoff at their horrible movies or filmi music, people who won’t mind if they chain smoke or don’t use deodorant, or get talcum powder on everything.
At least, that’s my guess.
Let me point out that I think the habit of hiring Indians-only and being friends with Indian-only is downright obnoxious. I’d very much like to distance myself from this! I’ve never been a “blood first” type of person anyway.
But I do agree about the inter-gender affection. PDAs are Just Not Done. Ever. Not even between married couples.
quote from **acsenray ** “it is not acceptable to show inter-gender affection for someone while in public” (sorry I’m not sure how to properly quote).
Would you say this applies to an Indian around other Indians or when they are by themselves? In other words, do different standards of behavior apply when you are in your own group versus others? We were holding hands in public, up until his other Indian friends walked by us. I never really met any of his friends except for one who was white (as far as I know, this was the only person who knew about us) and he would have no problem expressing affection then.
If you say there are “insiders” and “outsiders” and you treat the former better, does it mean that racism itself is part of the culture? Please correct me if I’m wrong because I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth.
It just seemed is you replaced “insiders” with whites and “outsiders” with blacks, it would amount to the same thing.
And this is why the French never succeeded in colonising India. 
(I presume that holds for all PDAs, not just inter-gender ones? (This question being from a country where gay marriage is legal.)
No PDAs whatsoever! I have never seen the parents of my Indian friends kiss on the mouth or hold hands. Rarely so on the cheek. It’s just…icky. The most affection I have ever seen them show is verbal affection, and it’s usually joking.
Sorry to double post, but homosexuality?? HAHAHAHA. If two men are seen holding hands there - which does happen, you know, same-gender affection is fine - it would never be assumed they were gay*. It is assumed they are best friends or brothers. I held the hands of my female cousins all the time.
*Well, some people obviously do - but then the insults and the anger begins. From what I have seen, and I’m again not that familiar with it as it’s just not talked about, being gay is almost like having three legs - of course you’re a freak, is what they think. Sorry.
A lot of Indians will be more relaxed about this if there are only non-Indians around. Non-Indians are not likely to go away with the impression that “Okay, this guy is an inconsiderate child for not controlling himself and displaying propriety and this girl is obviously a whore because she lets him do it.”
I don’t think the word “racism” makes any sense when there is no “race” at issue. You have a duty to help those who are close to you. The less close someone is to you, the less your duty is. It very well might be unethical or obnoxious or illegal when looked at from other points of view, but I don’t think it’s quite comparable to racism.
That depends. Same-sex hand-holding and hugging is perfectly acceptable. Overtly romantic behaviour between people of the same gender would probably make heads explode. Homosexuality, among “non-Westernized” Indians, is like something from outer space. The vast majority of homosexuals are way in the closet and are married and have children like any heterosexual. This, I believe, has been a factor in the spread of HIV in India. (I believe that, at least until recently, the official position of the Indian government was that homosexuality did not exist in India.)
Oh, and when parents or other relatives come in from out of town, nobody’s going to be staying at a hotel. You share beds, sofas, floors, whatever. Everybody shoves over and makes room. The other roommates might even find places to stay with other friends so that their roomie’s parents can use their bedrooms. That kind of thing is also hard to explain to non-Indian roommates.
It does when it applies to who/who can’t be brought into the group, and therefore helped out (i.e. marrying non-Indians). Just forwarded the thread to an American-born Indian. She says she’ll specify ‘No Indians, please’ from now on when looking for a roomie. Aww, and she’s such a high caste!
I think we’re talking about two different things here. See my posts 14, 22, and 29.
If it applies to roomies only, got it. Perhaps it should specify religion, though (I’m serious, not being snarky). Or ‘traditional-living Indians’. Though I suppose non-traditional ones who want to break free from their families and experience other cultures while at university wouldn’t reply.
That’s not to say, of course, that there isn’t racism among Indians. There are plenty of racist Indians and, just like in the West, the biggest target there is black people.
It sounds as though you might have real issues to discuss with Human Resources–although you began this thread with a vague question about cultural differences. And you’re judging all Indians because of a specific work situation.
(How did your relationship with the Punjabi end?)
Ok, let me see if I can explain. There are two issues here.
- Some religions say there is a necessity to preach to others, right? And I think this is immoral and quite frankly, disgusting. Going into other people’s countries solely to convert them is the height of egoism to me. Yet when I complain, people say, “Well, their God tells them to.”
This is exactly the same thing. Our holy books tell us of our duty. Duty to our parents, teachers, siblings, children, then duty to our fellow villagers,the village, the caste, the country, etc.
Following these tenets is *not *racism. We do not think - White people are lesser, so we must hire them. We don’t think Indian people are better. We simply know - our religion, our dharm, tells us - we must help our own first and strangers last.
(This is why I feel I can stand here and call myself *atheist *Hindu. Because I also believe I have a duty - duty to my parents, friends, my love, what-have-you. The fact that my definition of the duty and my priorities are vastly different than what the religion says does not mean I do not follow my duty - simply that I follow my duty not according to God but according to what I personally feel is right.)
- If anyone here is implying that nepotism is not rampant in the Western world they are sadly mistaken. However, as it’s not written right into your religious laws, there are ways to fight it here. It would be *impossible *to fight it there. No, unheard of. It’s just the way it is. I know if I apply for a job and it’s my friend and he has a sister who is applying for it she will get it. My main recourse would be to go to her and somehow convince her that my need is greater, and for her to withdraw.
Now that I hope that explains it better, one more thing. This doesn’t mean it should be acceptable here! When in Rome, etc. This is what we have HR set up for, and this is why this is still the best of all countries even with everything wrong with it.
Okay, I can understand this explanation–It almost seems similar to the “God’s chosen people” concept in Judaism. But I still don’t see how it cannot be considered racist. If you look at the definition of racism (courtesty of dictionary.com) it is"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others" Now you argue that “we must help our own first and strangers last”. But “our own” is based on race or ethnicity (take your pick). And in the definition, I would like to emphasize this portion: **inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement ** To me, this basically means that a person should be better off because he/she is of a certain ethnicity.
The issue of nepotism was raised. I know all too well that it is prevelant in Western culture. I can understand family members and friends to a certain extent because at least in most cases you actually are well-acquainted with the person. I guess I’m having a hard time with applying this to an entire ethnic group. It’s strange to me to have just met someone and feel that you can vouch for their character just because they have certain ethnicity.
And please, don’t get me wrong that I am saying all Indians are the same. Not at all. I have just noticed certain culural trends. The main reason I thought to ask the question was because of those roomate postings that I mentioned earlier. When I first saw them, I couldn’t help but think about images from the civil rights era with signs like “Whites only” and so forth.
I think that excessive ethnocentrism is not a good thing. For instance, I have a friend (not Indian) who dated an Indian guy. They had sex and he broke up with her telling her that’s pretty much all he was looking for. She was pretty hurt because she really cared about the guy. He was surprised that she was upset because " Oh, you don’t need to feel bad because noone will talk bad about you".
As for human resources issues, I ended up leaving that job but my husband still has his at a pharmacy. The pharmacist has had a few charges of racism made against him but they are so desparate to keep pharmacists (there is a shortage) they really don’t do anything about it. Anyway, my husband told me that he will only be there for another year or so and so chooses not to care. I’m just glad he got hired in when the previous pharmacist was there (who is a non-Indian). I really doubt he would have his job now if that had not been the case.
And as for my Punjabi guy…we were together for about half a year. From what I understand, he was somewhat of an an enigma as far as “typical” Indians go. He was 34 (ten years older than me), never been married, and wasn’t very family oriented (he hadn’t seen his parents in a few years because last time he had been to India they were wife-hunting for him. I guess he thought they were being too pushy…) After him, I met the person who I would marry so now I count my blessings that we split up…
I have to say that there are some reasons for this that make a lot of sense to me. There are fewer adjustments that you will need to make to the other persons lifestyle and general behavior if you are from similar cultures. The poster who talked about visiting relatives hit it right on the head for me.
My current roommates parents (they are white) stay in hotels when they visit. I (black) was stunned by this because I could not imagine my family coming to visit me out here and staying in a hotel. I had some trouble explaining how my mom, dad, brother and niece would be coming for a visit. They asked “Oh, and they’re staying in a hotel right?” That is not even a consideration in my family. Of course, my previous college roommate (white guy from Kansas) had very similar values to my own. His family stayed with us when they came to town and it was something that we just both accepted as a given.
I think Anaamika and acsenray have wonderfully explained the reasoning behind the request in the OP.
It is also difficult to gain access to the various Indian communities as an outsider so potential roommates might find it difficult to interact with one and other. Of course, if you are on the inside its amazing how interconnected people are. My two best friends growing up were Gujarti and Bengali. Out here in Pittsburgh I constantly meet people who are friendly with my best friend’s families. That is one of the nice things about being so dedicated to community.
The Sanskrit word for non-Indian is mleccha which means ‘foreign barbarian’. It implicitly means someone who is outside of the caste system, like a dalit–the people formerly known as “untouchables” because purity is defined according to the caste system and the lack of caste means absence of purity. High caste Hindus are not supposed to come in contact with anything polluting, which could be a lot of things, many of them intangible concepts. The wrong kind of food is considered polluting, which for the strict observants of high caste could be food cooked by someone of the wrong caste. To have no caste at all or to be a mleccha is inherently impure. I guess the underlying assumption, common to humanity in general, is that the group you know can be expected to adhere to the rules of behavior that you’re comfortable with, whereas an outsider may have different customs that your group might find abhorrent. For example, another meaning of mlecch in Hindi is ‘base, sinful’.
Wearing shoes indoors is considered bad because impurity from outside could be tracked in. You can’t control the outside environment, but you can control purity within your own space. As for bathroom habits, you have to wash with water after doing your business so that no trace of impurity remains on your person or your clothes. Muslims and Hindus alike observe this, and between themselves consider the failure of Westerners to do this as kind of dirty, sorry. Personal cleanliness is highly emphasized in both Hindu and Islamic traditions, with daily bathing for example. Americans now have a custom of showering daily too, which would be more acceptable to Indians, but the Europeans they first came in contact with centuries ago did not bathe much and I guess this formed an impression of Westerners as dirty people compared to Indians.
Funny. I’ve always thought of it as peninsular.
It’s different around Indians because it’s the Indians who are going to be judging you. I think he just wanted his friends to think well of you, and that means not doing stuff he knows will be interpreted unfavorably. He knows his non-Indian friends will have a different interpretation of things. Kind of how it’s okay to make out in front of your friends, but less so in front of your grandmother.
One think I think is interesting about Indian culture is the persistence of cultural identity. I have a friend that was born in Africa, married in England, and has lived for decades in America. But she is still primarily Indian. Amazing. There have been large numbers of ex-pat Indians all over the globe for generations, and I think they really have the “diaspora” thing down pat.