Not one word of this definition applies here. Where has anyone talked about a belief in “inherent differences” that is determinitive or anything or any notion of superiority or right to rule?
Actually, no, it’s not. It’s just that in some cases it might coincide with race or ethnicity.
Is “foreign barbarian” is original definition? Because I was under the impression that it started meaning “unclean” and spread to the other meanings. Guess I had it backwards.
I for one would welcome a Ask the Indian(s) thread. Further an explanation of the concepts of cleanliness would be interesting.
Did I double-post this?
I’d like to make a note about the origin of the term barbarian:
A few responses:
Guest1, yes, you may think of it as racism. But it’s not quite so clear-cut, is what I’m saying. I don’t know any other way to describe it as I am saying. Racism to me means you inherently think the other race is inferior. Let’s say that this does end up de facto to be racism, but it isn’t intended that way. I never said that we believed ourselves to be better. I simply said the code of “blood first” is written right there into our tenets. Only it’s expanded into “our people first”.
I don’t know if an American really could understand it! Here we have so many different races and so many different people living here. We don’t always think “Americans first” because “American” is not defined so precisely.
I too have noticed the persistance of cultural identity as even sven speaks. And I can’t lose my title of “Hindu” - I feel averse to the very idea.
I won’t speak as to the Sanskrit. I lost my chance to learn Sanskrit because I would have had to learn it on my vacation, in 100 degree weather. Yuck.
As for an “Ask the Hindu” thread, I have considered it before, but I can’t do it alone! I’d want Johanna, and ascenray, and Dervorin, and anyone else who could, to answer questions with me.
ETA: Oh yeah. smacks tomndebb with a trout
Does this include non-Hindu relatives, or are there no “non-Hindu relatives”? If an Indian person had half-Irish kids would they be accepted by their aunts and uncles as actual nieces and nephews, of the same pecking order? I’m imagining that somebody forever mars themselves by marrying a casteless non-Hindu, but does that automatically make the kids casteless non-Hindus as well?
Actually, I dispute the OP’s premise. Just because a lot of Indians studying in the west might prefer to have Indian roommates is not a basis to conclude that “Indian culture” is “insular.” Most Indians and Indian-Americans I know are open to a wide variety of cultural experiences and associate with lots of different kinds of people. Older people are less flexible in the same way that older people in any culture tend to be set in their ways.
Oh, and this whole thing works in the other direction too. See, in Indian culture, it is not the individual that is premier, it is the group. The group helps its members and each member helps the group. No matter who or where you are, you always have a group behind you, whether it is your immediate family (three-generation household), your extended family, your clan, your caste or when you start going to other places in the country or the world … your ethnic (language) group, and finally desis in general. South Asians, no matter where they are, will look for a group for mutual aid and recreation.
A Gujarati villager who comes to the United States is never alone. There will be an extensive network of kinsmen who will stake the newcomer’s new motel out on the Interstate, and he in turn will do the same. No banks, no interest paid to strangers. You are always stronger and able to accomplish more as a group than you are on your own.
And the group always sticks together. Your parents are always your parents. Your children are always your children. Note that there is no word for “cousin” in Indian languages. They are your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, nieces, nephews, grandchildren. My brother’s son’s children are my grandchildren and they will call me grandpa. My first cousin’s children will call me uncle and their children will call me grandpa. You always stick together. Sons never leave their parents, and when the parents are old, the sons care for them, the way their parents cared for them when they were children.
Indians look at the Western notion that adult children break off and form their own families as sad. They see it as a deficiency of loyalty, deficiency of family feeling, selfishness, and lack of foresight.
Of course, in real life, things don’t always work out so smoothly … . But you can say the same for any cultural values around the world. (And I certainly don’t want to have my mom always looking over my shoulder.)
You asked me, but I don’t really know for sure. I do know in my family my SO was considered…a little lesser, a little less important. Until it became aware that I and my SO, while not rich or anything, were one of the few people in this generation in the immediate family (my mom, two aunts, and two uncles) who were not causing any kind of trouble. Then we went back up a little in status.
I am sure if we had kids, they would be considered a little less not so much because they were non-Hindus but because of the way they’d be raised. I’d raise kids very modern and Americanized; they wouldn’t know the language (Which means they wouldn’t be able to communicate that well with my parents’ generation either) etc. If I raised them much more Hindu they’d get more respect. But I’m quite sure they’d get plenty of love.
I don’t know about families that really care about caste. As I have said, I’ve been so protected from it I don’t know much about it.
Ascenray makes some very good points in his post, too. Again, this is not necessarily to say that we agree with all of those, nor that that is the “best” way - what is the best way for families, anyway? - but it is just the way in India.
If it’s a family concerned with caste issues, then marrying outside your caste will make you persona non grata.
If it’s a less orthodox family, then they’ll do their best to make everyone feel part of the family, but there is often some degree of awkwardness. There is always some level of awkwardness with children raised outside of India, whether half-Irish or not, because children often find it difficult to adjust to the conditions of a multi-generational extended family household. There will be some conflict, because the grandparents and uncles will try to treat the children as grandchildren and nieces, but the children often won’t know how to respond properly. And the elders can be upset by behaviours and speech that are considered in Indian society as being disrespectful.
Well, coming from an English-ancestry family that essentially blew itself to bits over the last couple of generations, I can see where they are coming from. Thanks to deaths and other events, my family is gone as a group, and I am alone against the world. The concept of having a group on my side is very attractive.
Now, I’ve read enough posts here to see that always having a group around you can have its downsides as well; I just wish there was some sort of a happy medium.
What’s your take on this cnn article about shunning widows? Is this not as wide-spread as the article makes it out to be?
It is a societal problem and, as the article states, it is based mostly on a view of widows as being unwelcome financial burdens. But it is certainly not universally accepted.
To some extent is arises directly from notions of family loyalty, because you can only be a member of one family. Thus, when a girl gets married, she becomes a member of her husband’s family and is no longer part of her parents’ family. That puts married women at the complete mercy of their in laws, which is the source of some pretty substantial societal ills.
Hello again,
Based on what I’ve read–the answer to my question: Why is Indian culture so insular? would be primarily it’s in the (Hindu) religion. I still think that preferring others “of your own kind” is more or less racist. Now, I concede that Hindus may not perceive themselves to be be acting in a racist (or sectarian-ist, if you will), but it does have the same result.
For instance, a white supremacist may go out of their way to not want to be around non-whites because he/she thinks that they are inferior and wants to help whites above everyone else.
A Hindu may go out of their way to not be around non-Hindus because of “blood first” and they want to assist their fellow Hindus above everyone else.
Different reasons, ultimately same outcome is basically what I’m arguing.
As an aside, I’ve discussed this with some of my Indian friends/colleagues and from what I understand Sikhism is a little more “open” and doesn’t have so much of a “stick with our own” mentality. Correct me if I’m wrong please.
Ack! I forgot to ask in my last post–if the “blood first” thing applies to converts or just to those who are ethnically Indian?
If you are only discussing de facto why even ask about motivations? All I am trying to tell you is motivations do matter. Yes, it is true it ends up being similar, but I can’t look at both with the same eye. I simply can’t look at a raving white supremacist who thinks all non-whites should be eradicated with the same eye as an Indian who is told by his religion to help his first. The second is definitely more “positive” - it’s not “avoid others” but “help your own”. If that isn’t a difference to you, then there’s not much more I can say to explain.
Sikhism has its own problems. One of them is the distance between people who cut their hair and people who don’t. I’ve forgotten the word for someone who cuts, but considering it is a part of their very religion some of them do look unkindly upon this subset.
Well based on this thread it seems it doesn’t. Most people prefer others of their own kind, and typically that’s not considered racist until they start drawing lines based on skin color or ethnicity with less regard for being close or far. Examples?
Are any of the things above racist?
But you’re setting up a straw man here. There are “raving” white supremacists, to be sure, but that’s different from (say) the institutionalized racism of the South a generation or two ago. At that time, there were perfectly sane people who would give perfectly coherent (but of course deeply, deeply flawed) rationale as to why integration or intermarriage between blacks and whites was wrong. Cite? My own ears.
In that society, one could be “friends” with many black individuals, but openly state that it’s best that they go to their own separate schools and marry their own kind. And even convince oneself that your black friends agreed this was the best arrangement for everyone.
For the racists of the old-time Deep South, I think it came basically down to “that’s just how our society is structured”. Sound familiar?
You’re not reading very closely. Indian culture is not insular, not in my experience.
I would say “no.” Family and group cohesion is characteristic in all religious groups in India.
You quoted a definition of “racism” before of which not one word was demonstrably applicable to anything anyone has said in this thread. I would suggest you try to work on your definitions of “race” and “racism” before you draw any conclusions.
And where has anyone said anything about “preferring others of your own kind”?
And where has anyone said that Indians or Hindus “go out of their way to not want to be around non-Indians or non-Hindus because he/she thinks that they are inferior”?
And there is nothing anyone has said in this thread to support such a statement.
Family and group cohesion is found among all religious and ethnic groups in India. That does not mean that it is a cultural value for people to “go out of their way” to “not be around non-(whatever).”
It seems to me you have started with a conclusion that “Indian culture is insular” and you are fishing around for some kind of support for that conclusion. India is one of the world’s most diverse societies with people of all kinds and values and habits and traditions living shoulder-to-shoulder and Indians have gone around the world and have achieved success in a range of cultural settings.
You’ve taken the “I prefer an Indian roommate” notice out on an unsupported limb here. This thread has offered a lot more reasons other than racism and “insularity” why such a preference might exist.
I discovered after graduating from high school that I preferred having no roommates other than my own brother. Solely on the basis of that, am I a racist?
This is a nonsense question. Either someone is your blood relative or isn’t. Conversion has nothing to do with it.
And here you are setting up a rubric in which there is absolutely no difference between India and the United States. In the United States, institutionalized racism, in the form of miscengination laws, is largely eradicated. Similarly, in India, there are no laws barring intermarriage.
In the United States, there is some cultural conservatism and natural preference for “like” that makes intermarriages less likely, though they do happen. Guess what? Same damn thing in India, although, my guess would be that among middle-class educated Indians, “intermarriage” between ethnic groups is more common than intermarriage between middle-class educated blacks and whites in the United States.
As I said before, inter-ethnic and inter-caste marriages are very common in my family, going back to the 1950s. As for inter-religious marriages, my wild guess that Hindu-Muslim marriages in India might be just as rare as Christian-Muslim marriages in the United States.
And what exactly are you comparing here? People in America largely still prefer to marry within their own ethnic groups and religions. So where exactly is this less “insular” than Indian culture?
"And where has anyone said that Indians or Hindus “go out of their way to not want to be around non-Indians or non-Hindus because he/she thinks that they are inferior”?
I never said that "Indians or Hindus “go out of their way to not want to be around non-Indians or non-Hindus because he/she thinks that they are inferior” I attributed this to white supremacists. The example I used was :A Hindu may go out of their way to not be around non-Hindus because of “blood first” and they want to assist their fellow Hindus above everyone else. For whatever reason, they are treating thier group better than others.
It seems to me you have started with a conclusion that “Indian culture is insular” and you are fishing around for some kind of support for that conclusion. India is one of the world’s most diverse societies with people of all kinds and values and habits and traditions living shoulder-to-shoulder and Indians have gone around the world and have achieved success in a range of cultural settings.
Actually, this is very perceptive in that I am making that assumption. Also, I am putting down my thoughts and opinions on this to see if others can convince me otherwise and/or expand my knowledge on the question. I am fully willing to accept that the things that I’ve observed do not happen elsewhere–I am just looking for an explanation of things I’ve seen. Detroit tends to be rather self-segregated, so groups “sticking with their own” is not an unfamiliar concept to me, unfortunately.
Another experience I’ve had is that if I mention to an Indian person that I’ve seen a Hindi movie, the vast majority of the time they always look really shocked like “Wow, someone who actually knows something about our culture!!” Same thing with food. If an Indian person brings in some food they have cooked. It’s “Watch out! So spicy!!!”. And it never really is. My Punjabi ex-boyfriend told me this anectode of his friend who absolutely loved Indian food. My ex had to order for his friend, who liked the food extremely spicy. Apparently the waitstaff absolutely refused to believe that his friend loved authentic Indian food. Again, this strikes me as being insular, in having a tendency to belive that no one besides your own kind could relate to or understand your culture.
You’ve taken the “I prefer an Indian roommate” notice out on an unsupported limb here. This thread has offered a lot more reasons other than racism and “insularity” why such a preference might exist.
I have actually rethought the roomate situation. Religeous reasons were mentioned on why Hindus might want to live together, which makes sense from a practical point of view. I guess to being a new immigrant can be scary and it may be more of a comfort to have others with your same cultural background. Plus, a lot of times you will see 8 Indians living together in a two bedroom apartment. I will assume that probably a lot of other ethnic groups would not like this kind of arrangement because of a lack of personal space.
I discovered after graduating from high school that I preferred having no roommates other than my own brother. Solely on the basis of that, am I a racist?
I think it only may be racism when you don’t even know a person and you conclude that they must make a good roomate because of their ethnicity.
People in America largely still prefer to marry within their own ethnic groups and religions. So where exactly is this less “insular” than Indian culture?
I think this is a good point. Most of my long term relationships were with men who were not American so I personally think it’s a little wierd when a person has never even once dated outside their culture.
A lot of my American friends seem to be interested in other cultures–Indian friends/colleages not so much. I don’t know…maybe my sample is not representative…