White Supremacy in India

[The Vegan Marxist]

A comrade of mine from India showed me this video & stated that this was a view popularly supported, & that it scares him to be an African in india:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyysgUAsmoc

[Nolan]

White supremacy as a movement in India strikes me to be one of those things that add up to one guy and his dog. Like nazism in Colombia - they do exist but they're so irrelevant they're just a curiosity.

But as a common attitude, it's well known that Indian society openly favors those with lighter skin. It's not as subtle as it has been made to be in the west.

[Conquer or Die]

That video is hilarious. I can imagine Stormfront's reaction:

"While the Indians understand the supremacy of white skin as more beautiful and more pure, the use of beauty products will only mask the problem and not solve it."

I had a couple of jaw dropping movements with the whole series. On the whole it was spectacularly offensive. I mean, simply put, bonus points. The abject and honest racism on display is special.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm a fan of the Campaign For Real Beauty.

http://www.beautybunch.com/tag/campaign-for-real-beauty/

[Bud Struggle]

That video is hilarious. I can imagine Stormfront's reaction:

"While the Indians understand the supremacy of white skin as more beautiful and more pure, the use of beauty products will only mask the problem and not solve it."

Aren't Indians the proto-Aryans?

[Sir Comradical]

Every once in a while some right-wing North-Indian dipshit joins stormfront and tries to make friends claiming that he's their long lost Aryan brother whose ancestors conquered India and civilised the dark skinned Indians thousands of years ago.

Then the people on stormfront humiliate the guy.
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6733/garyskinp011.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

^^^ The guy look as typical as any Stormfronter you might care to find.

One has to admit--the thinking that goes into their figuring out "Who's White" or "Who's a Jew" it really pretty creative.

[scarletghoul]

lol "shaved to rid of the moustache and thick beard characteristic of indian people"
like indians are born with beards, and europeans never have to shave:lol:

[Nolan]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6733/garyskinp011.jpg

That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

[Nolan]

^^^ The guy look as typical as any Stormfronter you might care to find.

One has to admit--the thinking that goes into their figuring out "Who's White" or "Who's a Jew" it really pretty creative.

Not really. It's just a bunch of shit you'd expect to find from a 19th century textbook and other nonsensical stereotypes.

[RedStarOverChina]

Holy shit this is even more insensitive than I thought it would be. A guy dumps her for someone with slightly whiter skin.

Preference for paler skin has always been an obession in East Asia (China, Korea, Japan) but as far as I know no one ever gets dumped because he/she has a slightly darker skin tone. :blink:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where does that obsession come from? It makes no sense to me.

[Bud Struggle]

Where does that obsession come from? It makes no sense to me. That's true, It could just as easly be in the other direction.

[RedStarOverChina]

Where does that obsession come from? It makes no sense to me.
In the case of East Asia, paler skin has been a symbol of social status. If you are a peasant working in the fields you are unlikely to have pale skin, whereas aristocrats who live in mansions and rarely step out tend to be paler.

I hesitate to comment on why white skin is also the preference in India or in Black communities (many Black women also use skin-whitening products that are often detrimental to skin health).

But I can say this: One can hardly underestimate the psychological effect European imperialism had on other nations in the world.

Europeans and their ideas, preferences and aesthetic values largely shaped the world. Even many ideas and customs thought to be "indigenous" were highly influenced or even created by Europeans.

[Ocean Seal]

Its more dumb than actually racist. Its essentially the opposite of tanning, I despise the beauty industry, but their argument is that people always want what they don't have in terms of beauty. I wouldn't hesitate to call the beauty industry capitalist scum, but I'd need evidence of the belief in white supremacy before I call them racist scum.

[Bud Struggle]

Its more dumb than actually racist. Its essentially the opposite of tanning, I despise the beauty industry, but their argument is that people always want what they don't have in terms of beauty. I wouldn't hesitate to call the beauty industry capitalist scum, but I'd need evidence of the belief in white supremacy before I call them racist scum.

I think they are doing what Capitalists always do--find a need, invent a product to fill that need and then try to universalize that need through the population to get more sales.

[RGacky3]

Aren't Indians the proto-Aryans?

In the linguistic sense.


I think they are doing what Capitalists always do--find a need, invent a product to fill that need and then try to universalize that need through the population to get more sales.

Unfortunately, yeah, also manufacture needs, thats pretty much the entire beauty industry.


I wouldn't hesitate to call the beauty industry capitalist scum

Every industry is Capitalism scum :P


I'm a fan of the Campaign For Real Beauty.

http://www.beautybunch.com/tag/campa...r-real-beauty/ (http://www.beautybunch.com/tag/campaign-for-real-beauty/)

I believe most men have a campaign for real beauty, through their penis.

[Bud Struggle]

I believe most men have a campaign for real beauty, through their penis.

Actually I was kidding--I'm not really a fan of the campaign. Being Bourgeoise allows me to to be shallow and wallow in drinking Champaigne from supermodels belly buttons and cavier from--well it's a family site. :D

[AK]

Oh man this is fucked.

[RGacky3]

Being Bourgeoise allows me to to be shallow and wallow in drinking Champaigne from supermodels belly buttons and cavier from--well it's a family site.

Being proletarian allows me to do the same with the Bourgeoisies daughters while the Bourgeoise is out with the hookers. :)

[ComradeOm]

Where does that obsession come from? It makes no sense to me.In India its a symptom of the obsession with Englishness which is in turn a sign of social status. The English ruled India indirectly through a caste of local collaborators who over time picked up the language and mannerisms of their masters. According to an Indian comrade I know, wealthy Indian households still bring their children up speaking English as their first language (note the language used in the ad), they attend English language schools, and often study in England itself for a year or two. All of this (even looking English) carries real weight in Indian society

So there is a real difference between the odd Indian supporting the BNP, or similar to what Red America was talking about, and these attitudes in India


Its more dumb than actually racistHow is selling a product that is supposed to make you more white and therefore attractive not racist?. This ad is only marginally more subtle than old propaganda reels of muscular blond Aryans

[Lt. Ferret]

Being proletarian allows me to do the same with the Bourgeoisies daughters while the Bourgeoise is out with the hookers. :)


i sir, doubt the validity of your proletariatism.

[RGacky3]

How is selling a product that is supposed to make you more white and therefore attractive not racist?.

The racist part is people buying it.

[Lt. Ferret]

is tanning lotion cream racist if it makes you darker?

[#FF0000]

People don't buy tanning lotion to look black. People buy this sort of lotion to look white.

Sort of a difference.

[Lt. Ferret]

does brown not count? when i tan my spanish blood takes control and i look south mexican hispanic. during the winter i look white.

[Razor]

I can offer an analysis with as little bias as possible, but be warned that you may not like it. I have nothing against Hinduism but the modern version has become very dubious. Allow me to explain:

Ever wondered why Aryanism was such a hit during the height of European colonial empires. Because it largely strengthened the European foothold on their colonial subjects.
Hinduism, believe it or not, barely existed as a religion before the British invaded the subcontinent. In fact, the subcontinent was ruled by Central Asian and Indus Muslims (see Mughal Empire) and had been for centuries until their fellow Muslim brothers in Persia decided to attack them at the same time as the British which led to their downfall.
Now a lot of confusion may ensue. Note that when Arabs invaded Sindh (modern Pakistan) they referred to the people as "Hindustanis" (Land of Hindus), even after the people converted to Islam. So Hindu was not a religious definition but actually a geographical one.

Anyway, when the British invaded they noticed the lack of unity among non Muslims of the subcontinent, and because Muslims were resisting most (Hyderbad, Punjab, Pashtun areas) to British rule, the British literally developed the countless of pagan religions, sects and groups of the subcontinent into something more united. i.e Hinduism, in order to oppose Muslim political power. What was before a geographical term slowly turned into a religious group. Not surprisingly the Aryan theory emerged around this time which conveniently put British at the top as pure Aryans, followed by Brahmins who just happened to be the richest.
Throughout the Raj, Hindus were plotted against Muslims of the subcontinent (divide and conquer) and the partition was pretty much inevitable 100 years before it officially happened.

Note that even by todays definitions, Hinduism is not a clearly defined religion. The Indian government definition includes Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism as well.
Time line is a "trillion years", hence any archaeological discovery is labelled Hindu without many real facts.
There are literally millions of Gods, thousands of major sects. No wonder there was a lack of unity once.

Imo modern Hinduism is a case of a colonial era PsyOp. Hence all the support for Aryan invasion along with anti Islamic bias despite the fact that these people coexisted for 900 years before the partition.
The British messed with this region spectacularly. You can find more racial crap like "Martial races" which was purely a British addition to South Asian culture and happens to linger to this day among Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.

Once again, I must repeat this, I have nothing against Hindus. I am not stating all this to glorify another group, which is what you would expect of a fascist. I just think there is a side to Hinduism which is rarely shown and people should be aware of it.

[synthesis]

I still don't understand why you called yourself Mahatma Gandhi.

[Reznov]

But as a common attitude, it's well known that Indian society openly favors those with lighter skin. It's not as subtle as it has been made to be in the west.

Agreed. And also, has anyone else noticed that this is just in general for most parts of the world? That people will favor people with lighter skin than darker skinned people?

[Reznov]

Does anyone know if there are any harmful side effects for using that stuff?

If there are, we can have a pretty good argument set-up and warn people about using stuff like that.

[#FF0000]

does brown not count? when i tan my spanish blood takes control and i look south mexican hispanic. during the winter i look white.

people don't tan thinking "I want to look black/hispanic/brown". they tan to look tan.

[Bud Struggle]

people don't tan thinking "I want to look black/hispanic/brown". they tan to look tan.

Er, well yes--but some people think that is a pleasent skin tone, and for the most part being "tan" (not brown) is a rather Borugeois look--out on the boat or the golf course.

This is to a good extent people just wanting to look different then the way God made them. It's like buying new clothes.

You can I think take that commercial in to ways--one the racist, "white is good, dark is bad" or in the same way tanning companies sell their product, do "X" to yourself and you will be more attractive.

The real answer I think lies somewhere in between.

[RGacky3]

Being Tan makes your body look better if you have a good body, it exentuates the curves.

[Lt. Ferret]

being tan proves that you have the leisure time to go out and play on the beach and ride around on boats or whatever people do.

being light shows that you arent out in the fields working. i think most prosperous countries have taken to the tan model. more agricultural cultures still use the light skin method.

its classism, not racism.

[RGacky3]

being tan proves that you have the leisure time to go out and play on the beach and ride around on boats or whatever people do.


I'm pretty sure thats not it, I'm pretty sure its because you look better in the light.

[Conquer or Die]

Being Tan makes your body look better if you have a good body, it exentuates the curves.

I don't know about that. I think there's more to the cultural/genetic link than you think. When it comes to white women I usually favor the more pale skin opposed to the tan. For one, the tan can oftentimes look ridiculous, and for two, pale skin seems like a more natural look for a white woman to have. I'm Irish as well.

On the other hand, black and brown skinned women look as fine to me as white women do, and I don't mind their tan. I think the more natural a woman's skin color the better they look.

All that said, it's perfectly reasonable to be tan if you're living in the American southwest. That look is also usually more natural then self-tanners throughout the American landscape.

[RGacky3]

When it comes to white women I usually favor the more pale skin opposed to the tan. For one, the tan can oftentimes look ridiculous, and for two, pale skin seems like a more natural look for a white woman to have. I'm Irish as well.

Your in the minority :), but your personal preferance does'nt change the fact that in the sunlight a (reasonable) tan body's curves and shape are better defined.

[Lt. Ferret]

I'm pretty sure thats not it, I'm pretty sure its because you look better in the light.



well, most people you ever ask will say its because it shows they have the leisure time to lay about in the sun.

[RGacky3]

most people you ever ask will say its because it shows they have the leisure time to lay about in the sun.

People that get tans???

I don't think people get tans to show how much time they have.

[Dimentio]

Where does that obsession come from? It makes no sense to me.

Sun exposure.

The aristocracy in all cultures have usually had less melanin, because of less sun exposure over generations. "Whiteness" or rather "brightness" has been a signal of social status.

The one exception has been the western civilisation after industrialisation, when the affluent instead of trying to be as pale as possible tried to become as sporty and sun-tanned as possible (because the industrial working class was generally working within closed factories with no sun exposure, while the serfs were toiling out in the fields with constant sun exposure).

[L.A.P.]

Well I'm half Indian and that side of my family is specifically from the north part and I can say this comes from the deep seeded idea that the light skinned women form North India were better looking than the dark skinned women from South India. It's not white supremacy considering that all Indians regardless of skin color are caucasian and if your definition of "white" is european well then none of them are that, I would just call this a classic case of the elitist assholes and modern caste system in Indian culture.

[L.A.P.]

I can offer an analysis with as little bias as possible, but be warned that you may not like it. I have nothing against Hinduism but the modern version has become very dubious. Allow me to explain:

Ever wondered why Aryanism was such a hit during the height of European colonial empires. Because it largely strengthened the European foothold on their colonial subjects.
Hinduism, believe it or not, barely existed as a religion before the British invaded the subcontinent. In fact, the subcontinent was ruled by Central Asian and Indus Muslims (see Mughal Empire) and had been for centuries until their fellow Muslim brothers in Persia decided to attack them at the same time as the British which led to their downfall.
Now a lot of confusion may ensue. Note that when Arabs invaded Sindh (modern Pakistan) they referred to the people as "Hindustanis" (Land of Hindus), even after the people converted to Islam. So Hindu was not a religious definition but actually a geographical one.

Anyway, when the British invaded they noticed the lack of unity among non Muslims of the subcontinent, and because Muslims were resisting most (Hyderbad, Punjab, Pashtun areas) to British rule, the British literally developed the countless of pagan religions, sects and groups of the subcontinent into something more united. i.e Hinduism, in order to oppose Muslim political power. What was before a geographical term slowly turned into a religious group. Not surprisingly the Aryan theory emerged around this time which conveniently put British at the top as pure Aryans, followed by Brahmins who just happened to be the richest.
Throughout the Raj, Hindus were plotted against Muslims of the subcontinent (divide and conquer) and the partition was pretty much inevitable 100 years before it officially happened.

Note that even by todays definitions, Hinduism is not a clearly defined religion. The Indian government definition includes Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism as well.
Time line is a "trillion years", hence any archaeological discovery is labelled Hindu without many real facts.
There are literally millions of Gods, thousands of major sects. No wonder there was a lack of unity once.

Imo modern Hinduism is a case of a colonial era PsyOp. Hence all the support for Aryan invasion along with anti Islamic bias despite the fact that these people coexisted for 900 years before the partition.
The British messed with this region spectacularly. You can find more racial crap like "Martial races" which was purely a British addition to South Asian culture and happens to linger to this day among Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims.

Once again, I must repeat this, I have nothing against Hindus. I am not stating all this to glorify another group, which is what you would expect of a fascist. I just think there is a side to Hinduism which is rarely shown and people should be aware of it.

So Hinduism was invented by the British? Hmmm I'll check that with my grandfather. Hinduism has a shit load of gods probably because it's the oldest fucking religion in the world and even when the Islamic empires took over India not everyone converted and many who did reverted back to their original faith when the British Empire took over.

[bloodbeard]

Well I'm half Indian and that side of my family is specifically from the north part and I can say this comes from the deep seeded idea that the light skinned women form North India were better looking than the dark skinned women from South India. It's not white supremacy considering that all Indians regardless of skin color are caucasian and if your definition of "white" is european well then none of them are that, I would just call this a classic case of the elitist assholes and modern caste system in Indian culture.

The other girl in the ad doesn't seem to be an Indian though.
Anyway the ad makes one think bleaching your skin could get you back your ex that left you for a whitey, thus answering the question, "what does she got that I haven't?" and the answer of course is white skin haha. You should ask why north indian women are preferred over the dark skinned south indian ones, gee, could it be because the north are more "Caucasoid" rather than australoid?

[RGacky3]

I don't know, why are english girls considered overall less attractive than italian girls? Why are girls from Venezuela considered more attractive than Spanish girls? Why are Sweedish girls considered prettier than German girls?

I don't know, but the answer is'nt ALWAYS racism.


The one exception has been the western civilisation after industrialisation, when the affluent instead of trying to be as pale as possible tried to become as sporty and sun-tanned as possible (because the industrial working class was generally working within closed factories with no sun exposure, while the serfs were toiling out in the fields with constant sun exposure).

It could also be that women are attracted to stronger and more atheltic and healthy looking men.

[Manic Impressive]

I don't know, why are english girls considered overall less attractive than italian girls? Why are girls from Venezuela considered more attractive than Spanish girls? Why are Sweedish girls considered prettier than German girls?

I don't know, but the answer is'nt ALWAYS racism.

No, it's not racism it's a silly generalization of a shallow society.


It could also be that women are attracted to stronger and more atheltic and healthy looking men.

So are you saying that having white skin is less attractive? Because it seems the women in Asia disagree.

This whole thing reminds me of the sneetches on the beaches by Dr Seuss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1qWZWNGGE

We all want what we can't have and some one will always be willing to exploit that desire for profit.

No-one has metioned the women in China who are getting plastic surgery to make their eyes more round or the women of African origin getting plastic surgery on their noses to make them less broad. Or the one that has already been mentioned the caucasian people contracting skin cancer from spending too long on sun beds. They are all the same modifying your appearence due to social perceptions of beauty. It is the same so either it's all bad or it isn't. Saying it's "white supremacy" is plain wrong and wreacks of inverted rasicm. It is more a case of western society being hypocritical of the "poor deluded uncivilized nations"

Here in the UK charecteristics of being celtic e.g. red hair, lighter skin, freckles are all enforced by popular culture as being detrimental. If one of those people dyed their hair and tanned their skin how is it any different

[Queercommie Girl]

So are you saying that having white skin is less attractive? Because it seems the women in Asia disagree.


It's partly due to the indirect influences of colonialism. But Asian men worship "white skin" even more. Most of the female underwear adverts in China use white models. :rolleyes:



No-one has metioned the women in China who are getting plastic surgery to make their eyes more round

Even my new avatar could be interpreted as a sub-conscious form of this kind of influence...:blushing::(

[L.A.P.]

The other girl in the ad doesn't seem to be an Indian though.

That girl is definitely Indian, I don't know what your definition of looking Indian is?

[red cat]

Both are Indian. Indians have a wide range of looks, the most common being brown.

[RGacky3]

No, it's not racism it's a silly generalization of a shallow society.


Yup.

[timbaly]

Even my new avatar could be interpreted as a sub-conscious form of this kind of influence...:blushing::(

I've met a few young women from South Korea who have had that surgery. One told me she did it because she was sick of her eyes. I can't imagine being "sick of my eyes" it's an odd statement to make.

[Lt. Ferret]

South Koreans also put Starcraft tournaments on TV.

[ComradeMan]

There is a lot of ignorance about India here. To talk of an "Indian race" is just silly and without foundation- (as most races really). India has well over 50 languages at last count, at least five differing religious systems and if you count the schools of those beliefs it would go on forever more. Indians come in all shapes and sizes and certainly in the far north/north-west of the Indian subcontinent there is a higher proportion of fairer-skinned, blue eyed peoples too- but phenotype and genotype should not be confused and don't necessitate culture either.

As for fairer sking being more appreciated due to the influence of colonialism- what a complete load of bollocks. The same goes for the Chinese and Japanese, if you look at Chinese and Japanese art the whiteness of skin was considered attractive long before Western colonial influence- hell people in the West used to whiten their skin to an almost alabaster colour with whited lead! WHY? Because having fairer skin means you are not a suntanned peasant working in the fields- that's why!!!! It is/was a class distinction not a race distinction.


The original invading Indo-Aryans were probably the predominant caste in their role as conquerors were most likely fairer coming from the Eurasian steppe and this, instrumentalised by the caste system, has created a mentality which persists to this day in some quarters. The depictions of Hindu deities also very often show them in humanoid form as a fair(er) and sometimes with red hair as in the case of Lord Shiva.

It doesn't surprise me that in a population as huge as India's you're going to find racists and nutcases either.

There are also aboriginal populations of "black" Indians in southern India and the unknown quantities of the Andoman islands, one island still refusing contact with the outside world and probably representing a population as old as 60,000 years according to some estimates.

[Achara]

I'd like to comment on 'whiteness' in Thailand. Light skin is highly sought after, and its related to the deeply classist attitudes many hold - having darker skin is a sign that you work outside in the sun, on a farm. Which means that you're poor. Which means that you're on the bottom of the ladder in the hierarchical social structure. Conversely, fair skin is a sign of wealth and beauty. The whole beauty industry runs on creams/lotions/whatever which lighten the skin. Indians and Pakistanis are often looked down upon, and seen as 'smelly'. In the West, however, tanned brown skin is sought after and seen as indicating the person has a luxurious life so as to be able to holiday and enjoy the sun, whereas people with very white skin are thought to spend most of their time indoors.

[ComradeMan]

I'd like to comment on 'whiteness' in Thailand. Light skin is highly sought after, and its related to the deeply classist attitudes many hold - having darker skin is a sign that you work outside in the sun, on a farm. Which means that you're poor. Which means that you're on the bottom of the ladder in the hierarchical social structure. Conversely, fair skin is a sign of wealth and beauty. The whole beauty industry runs on creams/lotions/whatever which lighten the skin. Indians and Pakistanis are often looked down upon, and seen as 'smelly'. In the West, however, tanned brown skin is sought after and seen as indicating the person has a luxurious life so as to be able to holiday and enjoy the sun, whereas people with very white skin are thought to spend most of their time indoors.

Just like it was in Europe too, until Coco Chanel made it fashionable to be tanned.

Hell is being tanned now a sign of being bourgeois because you can afford to sunbathe? :laugh:

[RGacky3]

When I see some one tanned, my first thought is'nt, "That guy has money."

[Achara]

I'm not sure if its a sign of being bourgeois, but if you live in Jersey, then it might be a sign you're a guido. :ohmy:

[ComradeMan]

When I see some one tanned, my first thought is'nt, "That guy has money."

In Italy looks are very much signs of "money", if you have money you can afford to go the dentist (dentists cost the earth here) so you have good teeth, then of course the 12month a year tan that shows you can afford to go to the solarium, the physique- gym membership, then as age sets in the lifting and the botox and the lip enhancement..... all cost money and are signs of prestige in a sense.

[ComradeMan]

I'm not sure if its a sign of being bourgeois, but if you live in Jersey, then it might be a sign you're a guido. :ohmy:

Isn't guido a racist slur against an Italian-American? :scared:

[Achara]

I guess it can be used in that fashion. Today it seems to be more targeted at a certain fashion style/groups, kinda like chav I think.

[ComradeMan]

I guess it can be used in that fashion. Today it seems to be more targeted at a certain fashion style/groups, kinda like chav I think.

Chav is also racist, it comes from the Romanish word for boy and implies someone being low class = Romani. :scared:

[Achara]

To be honest, I don't think its racist. If anything, it would be classist. Or could simply be used to denote the type of clothes someone is wearing. Context is key.

[Achara]

http://hategasm.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/douchebags.jpg

Help, we're being discriminated against. :crying:

[ComradeMan]

Help, we're being discriminated against. :crying:

So are you saying that this group of young men are representative in some way of Italian-Americans or a social class?

[Achara]

Lol, yeah that's exactly what i'm sayin dude :marx:

[ComradeMan]

Lol, yeah that's exactly what i'm sayin dude :marx:

Vaffanculo allora- I've just done some looking into that on the net- and it seems to me that is an offensive word. Saying it's about context is bullshit. It's like someone using the N-word and then saying they were only using in the context of rappers or something :scared: and the posting some stereotypical bullshit picture or other to try and get out of it.

[Achara]

Ah yah, context is key - example, a guido calling him/herself a guido is clearly not an example of someone using it in a racist manner. And no, not comparable to the n-word in any manner (sorry, but Italians aren't discriminated in any form in the USA). Like I said, guido is used for the sort of person who uses too much hair gel with their hair slung back, wears far too tight t-shirts, whose lifes concerns revolve around getting laid and how they look, as well as an obsession with fake tans. Them being Italian had nothin to do with it. Seriously, if you're trying to paint my usage of it as racist then you should really get a fuckin clue,

you ignorant cracker. :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

Ah yah, context is key - example, a guido calling him/herself a guido is clearly not an example of someone using it in a racist manner. And no, not comparable to the n-word in any manner (sorry, but Italians aren't discriminated in any form in the USA). Like I said, guido is used for the sort of person who uses too much hair gel with their hair slung back, wears far too tight t-shirts, whose lifes concerns revolve around getting laid and how they look, as well as an obsession with fake tans. Them being Italian had nothin to do with it. Seriously, if you're trying to paint my usage of it as racist then you should really get a fuckin clue,

you ignorant cracker. :laugh:

That's bullshit too. That's like the "Why can't I use the n-word when African-Americans use it all the time?" argument.

Italian-Americans are not victims of negative stereotyping and discrimination....? Don't make me laugh. When was the last time you saw a film in which an Italian-American wasn't a mafioso? Eh? WTF. There seems to be a lot of stuff on the net that suggests that Italian-Americans are the victims of stereotyping and discriminationary attitudes and historically they were discriminated against a great deal. But even so, the use of offensive terms, especially here at RevLeft, is not on. Like I could say that Native Americans aren't discriminated against in Italy but that doesn't give the right to use pejorative terms towards them does it?

http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/anti-italian-discrimination-tf/

"Furthermore, and as incredible as it may seem, a federal judge during the trial process unwittingly joined in the character assassination of the Italian ethnic group by inferring that young Italian Americans are attracted to criminal life. In another recent trial, Scelsa v. CUNY, a federal court enjoined the City University of New York from discriminating against Italian Americans with respect to faculty recruitment and promotions, the dismemberment of the Italian American Institute, and the dismissal of Joseph Scelsa."

On a class basis too, is that what you do? Mock working class people from an immigrant population? GTFOH!!!!!! Minchione.

[Achara]

That's bullshit too. That's like the "Why can't I use the n-word when African-Americans use it all the time?" argument.Did I say that you fucking moron? Unlike Italian-Americans, African Americans face structural discrimination which is continuing today. Surely you understand the difference between me calling some white boy a cracker, versus me calling a black man a 'nigger.' Yah, the difference is that the latter has the backing of the state and economic structure to enforce it, whereas the former is just my personal hatred of white boys (for example). That's why leftists take seriously the latter, but not the former.

Stop being a liberal.


When was the last time you saw a film in which an Italian-American wasn't a mafioso?Ahahahah, OMG. This is one of the funniest examples of discrimination (as leftists understand it) that I've heard on this site. No, leftists are concerned about discrimination in a material manner. Seriously, in the world of REAL discrimination, a bunch of rich white boys complaining about how they're over-represented as criminals (often in a positive light) in movies is worth nothing. Real discrimination means being denied a job or housing on the basis of your skin color. Real discrimination means being constantly harassed and beaten up by the cops.

You degrade that discrimination by associating it with your bullshit cries of racism.


Like I could say that Native Americans aren't discriminated against in Italy but that doesn't give the right to use pejorative terms towards them does it?Uh no, but that's because Native Americans don't really have a substantial existence in Italy. But nonetheless it would be wrong because Native Americans have a history and the repercussions of it today, of systematic discrimination and genocide. And it would be further wrong because of the continuing bigotry towards non-whites in Italy today. Nice try, fuckwit. (And its further beyond the point, since guido as is commonly used is a comment on someone's fashion style, not their ethnicity).


On a class basis too, is that what you do? Mock working class people from an immigrant population?Italians stopped being an immigrant population some time ago, Italians stopped being treated as colored some time ago too, and so stopped facing discrimination some time ago too.

Stop boring me with your feigned indignation.

[Achara]

This reminds me of that Sopranos episode, where a bunch of Italian American mafiosi were pissed off at protests by radicals and Native Americans against Columbus Day, because it painted their great Italian ancestor in a bad light.

A bunch of rich white Italian American thugs trying to protect their Italian pride whilst spitting on the real atrocities committed.

[ComradeMan]

So fucking what? There are different forms of discrimination and different structures and they are all out of order. The death-camps closed 65 years ago that doesn't mean it's all right to be anti-Semitic does it? Would you use anti-Semitic terminology in the US, because it's all right because the Jews are not "poor" and haven't been discriminated against systematically bla bla fucking bla.... Funny how there's a black president but there's never been an Italian one.


There is no fucking difference when you use racist terms, I don't care what your background is or why or whatever else- it's a hate term your using and that's it. Since when do you speak for leftists BTFW?

No one's being liberal.

So the only form of discrimination is physical? You muppet. I already gave you a recent example of a Federal Court Case. I notice you airbrushed that out of your response.

Uh no, but that's because Native Americans don't really have a substantial existence in Italy.

But that was your argument wasn't it? They aren't discriminated against in the US, so therefore it's not racist to use pejorative terms for them- duh!!!!

What the fuck has the racism (sadly) present today in Italy got with being racist towards Italians, especially Italian-Americans? So you are saying now that all Italians are racist or something? Or because rightwing/racist groups exist within a population group it's all right to attack any member of that group? Your muppetry is staggering.

I like the way you try and change the meaning of the word- despite all the sources to the contrary including a court case and a US TV programme Jersey Show being cited recently by the anti-defammation organisations in Italy.

and so stopped facing discrimination some time ago too.

What's your definition of a long time ago? The 1990's. Try looking up anti-italianism.

Stop being a racist bollocks.
Coglione razzista sei TU!!!!!!

PS

This reminds me of that Sopranos episode, where a bunch of Italian American mafiosi were pissed off at protests by radicals and Native Americans against Columbus Day, because it painted their great Italian ancestor in a bad light.

Well done, you base your opinion of Italian-Americans on the fucking Sopranos.... The Sopranos is FICTION you idiot. It would be like someone basing their entire opinion of African-Americans on gangster rap, Different Strokes and The Cosby Show.... please.......

EDIT- I just checked and I see the image was from a site called "hategasm"--- speaks volumes.

[Rêve Rouge]

Errr right...well back on topic, this whole "white supremacy" isn't too much of a surprise on the eastern hemisphere (not sure about Europe though). Like everyone's been saying, lighter skin pigment usually denotes those who have wealth whereas those with darker skin pigments denotes those who are poor, farmers, ect...

Lightening skin products are pretty popular in Asia. In Cambodia, people go as far as bleaching their skin. Funny thing is, light skin Cambodians in Cambodia sometimes get mistaken and accused as being Vietnamese and may make racial comments. Pretty sad...

[Achara]

Well that's fucked, I wrote a response but I was logged out.


So fucking what? There are different forms of discrimination and different structures and they are all out of order. The death-camps closed 65 years ago that doesn't mean it's all right to be anti-Semitic does it? Would you use anti-Semitic terminology in the US, because it's all right because the Jews are not "poor" and haven't been discriminated against systematically bla bla fucking bla.... Funny how there's a black president but there's never been an Italian one.


There is no fucking difference when you use racist terms, I don't care what your background is or why or whatever else- it's a hate term your using and that's it. Since when do you speak for leftists BTFW?

No one's being liberal.

So the only form of discrimination is physical? You muppet. I already gave you a recent example of a Federal Court Case. I notice you airbrushed that out of your response.

Uh no, but that's because Native Americans don't really have a substantial existence in Italy.

But that was your argument wasn't it? They aren't discriminated against in the US, so therefore it's not racist to use pejorative terms for them- duh!!!!

What the fuck has the racism (sadly) present today in Italy got with being racist towards Italians, especially Italian-Americans? So you are saying now that all Italians are racist or something? Or because rightwing/racist groups exist within a population group it's all right to attack any member of that group? Your muppetry is staggering.

I like the way you try and change the meaning of the word- despite all the sources to the contrary including a court case and a US TV programme Jersey Show being cited recently by the anti-defammation organisations in Italy.

and so stopped facing discrimination some time ago too.

What's your definition of a long time ago? The 1990's. Try looking up anti-italianism.

Stop being a racist bollocks.
Coglione razzista sei TU!!!!!!

PS

This reminds me of that Sopranos episode, where a bunch of Italian American mafiosi were pissed off at protests by radicals and Native Americans against Columbus Day, because it painted their great Italian ancestor in a bad light.

Well done, you base your opinion of Italian-Americans on the fucking Sopranos.... The Sopranos is FICTION you idiot. It would be like someone basing their entire opinion of African-Americans on gangster rap, Different Strokes and The Cosby Show.... please.......

Man, I can't be fucked repeating what I said before, but never before have I witnessed someone so completely miss the point.

You're a complete fucking idiot, or hopefully a troll so your idiocy is deliberate.

Briefly: Scorsese making another movie of Italian Americans being portrayed as gansters has nothing to do with material discrimination which leftists are, or should be, concerned about. Not all forms of discrimination are equal - groups positions change over time, and whilst that doesn't excuse bigotry, it changes the seriousness of it. Jews were once systematically denied employment in the USA, now that's no longer the case, yet anti-semitisim is still historically close enough for it to be considered repugnant. I wrote my response before you cited that federal case, so I can hardly airbrush something that wasn't there, you fucking moron. Context matters; a black man calling another black man a 'nigger' simply isn't comparable to a white man calling a black man a 'nigger.' Like the worst excusers for discrimination, you ignore the material conditions and instead focus on the superficial usage of words, rather than the actual economic and social systems which back them up. Long story short; Italian Americans have long since been a group which faces structural discrimination. I mean your shit about there being a black President but not ever being an Italian one is just an example of your completely addled view of what discrimination actually constitutes. And I didn't base my views of Italian Americans on the Sopranos, I compared your indignation over RACISM AGAINST ITALIANS!!! to an episode where a bunch of Italian Americans ignore REAL discrimination which has been committed against native Americans because they're so caught up in their own delusions about being discriminated against. Its entirely fitting to the type of morons like you.

[Achara]

http://www.fearnet.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201015/scorsese.jpg

American Racist Number One.

Also happens to be a prominent self-hating Italian American.

:laugh:

[Bud Struggle]

Ah yah, context is key - example, a guido calling him/herself a guido is clearly not an example of someone using it in a racist manner. And no, not comparable to the n-word in any manner (sorry, but Italians aren't discriminated in any form in the USA). Like I said, guido is used for the sort of person who uses too much hair gel with their hair slung back, wears far too tight t-shirts, whose lifes concerns revolve around getting laid and how they look, as well as an obsession with fake tans. Them being Italian had nothin to do with it. Seriously, if you're trying to paint my usage of it as racist then you should really get a fuckin clue,

you ignorant cracker. :laugh:

Comrade. You are a bigot.

[ComradeMan]

You're using hate terms, posting images from a self-labelled "hategasm" site. If a black man using the n-word towards another black man is not the same as a white man, well, yeah- but then are you Italian? You based your response citing the Sopranos-- idiota! I can only reply to what you right.
So you are also implying that there has been no discrimination against Italian Americans? Despite the fact that Clinton apologised for the internment of Italians during WWII? Despite the other evidence from a recent period too? If anti-semitism is historically close enough then so is anti-italianism- in fact their time periods overlap.
You just don't fucking get it do you, muppet, it's never okay to use hate speech and it's certainly not okay on a fucking Revolutionary Left site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stop trying to blind with fucking science and back your way out of an argument. Fact is, you used a racial slur againt Italians, laughed about it and then made a whole load of stereotypical comment and references about Italy and Italians, you even tried to imply that it was okay because of problems in Italy too. That's what you did.
You know, if I had inadvertently used a term that offended someone's race or class, orientation or whatever- even "innocently", I would at least be adult enough to apologise.
You're a racist prick- deal with it.

PS Al Capone may have been a lot of things, but he opened up soup-kitchens for the hungry during the depressione.

[Achara]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31GZF0BT69L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[ComradeMan]

I want everyone to see what this person has written on my Public Messages
Achara
"Oh noes, why didn't my sicilian parents change their surname so I wouldn't have to live with the humiliation of being a self-hating wog".

You can stick that WWII thing up your ass too, never heard of partigiani? This is what they went through....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/FerruccioNazionale.jpg

[Achara]

If a black man using the n-word towards another black man is not the same as a white man, well, yeah- but then are you Italian? My mother and her husband are Sicilian. But that's completly irrelevant to what we've been discussing.


Despite the fact that Clinton apologised for the internment of Italians during WWII?

Yes, during WW2. :ohmy:

Times have changed, honey.


Despite the other evidence from a recent period too?

Seriously man, you can find any group in America claiming that they've been discriminated against. Sporadic cases, and claims from Zionist Anti Defamation groups that such and such a TV show is racist don't = structural discrimination.


If anti-semitism is historically close enough then so is anti-italianism- in fact their time periods overlap.

The difference is that 6 million Italian Americans weren't gassed, and they don't continue to face the consequences of what discrimination they faced today (unlike Native Americans, for instance).


You just don't fucking get it do you, muppet, it's never okay to use hate speech and it's certainly not okay on a fucking Revolutionary Left site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And guido, for the hundredth time, is NOT AN EXAMPLE OF HATE SPEECH.

Get a fucking clue man, its a reference to someone with a fucking atrocious fashion style (in my opinion). They may or may not be Italian American; that's beyond the fucking point. And if you think I used it in a racist manner then you should get a reality check.


Fact is, you used a racial slur againt Italians, laughed about it and then made a whole load of stereotypical comment and references about Italy and Italians, you even tried to imply that it was okay because of problems in Italy too. That's what you did.

No, what I did was equate someone using a fake tan to someone living in Jersey to being a guido. What stereotypical comments about Italy? Do you deny that there is not racism in Italy? Do you not deny that African migrants are systematically slaughtered and set upon? That's a fact, and was only made in reference to the continuing racism in Italy.


PS Al Capone may have been a lot of things, but he opened up soup-kitchens for the hungry during the depressione.

Yes, he was a true Samaritan. :rolleyes: God you need a lobotomy.

[Achara]

I want everyone to see what this person has written on my Public Messages
Achara
"Oh noes, why didn't my sicilian parents change their surname so I wouldn't have to live with the humiliation of being a self-hating wog".

You can stick that WWII thing up your ass too, never heard of partigiani? This is what they went through....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/FerruccioNazionale.jpg

LOL, firstly, you messaged me you fucking freak. Secondly, what the hell does the Italian resistance have to do with Italian Americans being systematically discriminated against today?

Thirdly, parts of the Allied War effort (and reconstruction) were aided my the Mafia :laugh: See, maybe all those movies depicting Italian Americans as gangsters aren't so bad after all - they're true leftist heroes :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Fuck you piece of shit. I don't give a fuck if your mother was Gina Lollobrigida- that doesn't prove anything. One of the biggest racists towards Southern Italians in Italy today is married to a southern Italian- it doesn't change the shit they come out with and does make it any justification either. Your using hate speech and your trying to back out of it with this pseudo-intellectual justification and that, but it's backtracking and bullshit because whatever your background your behaving like a racist reactionary.

You are the one who keeps contradicting your posts- one minute it was recent enough to be valid, i.e. anti-semitism, the next minute it was a long time ago so it doesn't count- anti-italianism - funny that they we are talking about the same periods more or less? Funny eh? Despite the examples from far more recently.

And saying that you were just using an (offensive) word to refer to something trivial is a convenient way of trying to back out of things too.

"Guido" is considered and offensive word by a lot of other people and so is "wog"- whether you decide it's offensive or not is irrelevant- on that basis every reactionary here would turn round and say well "my use "faggot" isn't homophobic" or "my use of "gook" isn't meant to offend eastern people"- why not stop there? Hell I have arabic friends and lived in the Middle-East- does that give me a right to go round talking about "towelheads"?

People on the left don't use racial slurs. Full stop. Okay. Period.. Capisci?

What's the matter with the Al Capone example? Thought you would like it seeing as you have such a low opinion of Italians and Italian-Americans that all you do is talk about WWII and the fucking Sopranos, Martin Scorsese films and so on........ IGNORANTE!!!!!!!!!!!

Pezzo di merda razzista che non sei altro- ti sfido venire qui in Italia in un centro sociale e parlare così come parli qui adesso- coglione.

PS We forgot you were also using the word "chav"- well done, offend Romanish people too while you are at it. And your snobbish value judgements to working class Italian-Americans and deliberate depiction of them in such manner reveals nothing else but bourgoeis class contempt at its worst.

[Achara]

Fuck you piece of shit. I don't give a fuck if your mother was Gina Lollobrigida- that doesn't prove anything. One of the biggest racists towards Southern Italians in Italy today is married to a southern Italian- it doesn't change the shit they come out with and does make it any justification either.I only mentioned it because you said:


If a black man using the n-word towards another black man is not the same as a white man, well, yeah- but then are you Italian? Its funny how your opinion changed so quickly. :lol:


Your using hate speechYep, I sure am horrible.


You are the one who keeps contradicting your posts- one minute it was recent enough to be valid, i.e. anti-semitism, the next minute it was a long time ago so it doesn't count- anti-italianism - funny that they we are talking about the same periods more or less? Funny eh? Despite the examples from far more recently.Well, firstly I think that the worst discrimination which Italian Americans faced never came close to what the Jews faced, so no, they're different. Secondly, I wouldn't condone the usage of words used in a racist manner towards Italians, even if the discrimination they faced is now historically obsolete. But the fact of the matter is that me calling someone a guido because of how they dress doesn't degrade them as an Italian American, nor does me calling myself a wog, or me calling my friends a wog in a joking manner.


"Guido" is considered and offensive word by a lot of other people and so is "wog"- whether you decide it's offensive or not is irrelevant- on that basis every reactionary here would turn round and say well "my use "faggot" isn't homophobic" or "my use of "gook" isn't meant to offend eastern people"- why not stop there? Hell I have arabic friends and lived in the Middle-East- does that give me a right to go round talking about "towelheads"? Actually, I think that all of those words - 'faggot', 'gook' 'towelhead' can be used in an ironic and satirical manner to point out the idiocy of racism. Its actually one of the best ways to counter racism, in my opinion. Of course, the context matters, so whilst I wouldn't be using the word 'wog' in every sentence, or whatever, when I'm with my friends its acceptable to use it. Point is, it can be used in a non-offensive manner because context determines the usage and therefore the meaning. You've applied this weird rule where a word must ALWAYS be offensive and racist, regardless of how it is being used or for what purpose. That's lead you to some bizarre conclusions.


People on the left don't use racial slurs. Full stop. Okay. Period.As I've pointed out, guido can, and can not be used as a racial slur (you seem to consistently avoid this point). I didn't use it in a racist manner, so I don't have any pangs of guilt. :)


Pezzo di merda razzista che non sei altro- ti sfido venire qui in Italia in un centro sociale e parlare così come parli qui adesso- coglione. I'm not interested in speaking your horrible language to a pigheaded Italian nationalist like yourself. But its funny how you can only make threats in your ugly language.


PS We forgot you were also using the word "chav"- well done, offend Romanish people too while you are at it. http://www.that-dj.com/wp-content/uploads/image/chav.JPG

Romanish through and through.

[RGacky3]

Actually, I think that all of those words - 'faggot', 'gook' 'towelhead' can be used in an ironic and satirical manner to point out the idiocy of racism. Its actually one of the best ways to counter racism, in my opinion.

Really? Go call a black guy a nigger with your goatee irony, see if he thinks its funny and a great way to counter it, call an arab a towelhead Sarcastically, see what he thinks.

[RGacky3]

BTW I don't think guido is really a racist term since it does'nt refer to anyone thats an italian-american, and no, mafia movies are not proof of discrimination against italian americans, mafia stories make great movies, thats the way it is.

[Achara]

Did I say that?

I've heard some Arab comedians lampooning racist American stereotypes of Arabs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSlwZCk1ELQ

For example. Anyway, I've got Viet friends who ironically use the word 'gook' - who the hell am I to tell them what words they can't use? Who the hell am I to chastise them for being racist? :huh:

[Bud Struggle]

BTW I don't think guido is really a racist term since it does'nt refer to anyone thats an italian-american, and no, mafia movies are not proof of discrimination against italian americans, mafia stories make great movies, thats the way it is.

No problem with calling Mexican Americans "Panchos" either, I suppose?

[Red Poplar]

No problem with calling Mexican Americans "Panchos" either, I suppose?

And calling Croats "Ustasha scum"? I've experienced it on this forum.

[ComradeMan]

@Achara

Its funny how your opinion changed so quickly. :lol:

My opinion hasn't changed.

Well, firstly I think that the worst discrimination which Italian Americans faced never came close to what the Jews faced, so no, they're different.

Oh that's fucking brilliant. So because one group has been discriminated against more it justifies discrimination against another. Before you were practically denying there was any discrimination now it's okay because it wasn't Auschwitz is it? Hell, that's real consolation. The next time some poor victim of discrimination is insulted or abused they can console themselves with the thought that at least they weren't Jewish 65 years ago! You really are being a muppet now.

Secondly, I wouldn't condone the usage of words used in a racist manner towards Italians, even if the discrimination they faced is now historically obsolete.

Which it isn't as I've shown you with evidence- besides now you've changed it again- a racist manner. Well you used the word, you posted stereotypical material and you more or less said that it was justified because Italians are racists. I would say that's pretty damn racist and generalising against Italians.

But the fact of the matter is that me calling someone a guido because of how they dress doesn't degrade them as an Italian American, nor does me calling myself a wog, or me calling my friends a wog in a joking manner.

First I am not your friend and this is a public internet forum not your living room or the bar with your buddies so you should take responsibility for your words and choose them more carefully perhaps. Second what you call yourself is your business but what you call others has a different effect. Secondly, I was under the impression that RevLeft itself had rules about using hate speech and racially loaded terms.... did you ever read them?

Actually, I think that all of those words - 'faggot', 'gook' 'towelhead' can be used in an ironic and satirical manner to point out the idiocy of racism.

Yeah sure.... That's the best spin I have seen in trying to get out of things for a long while. 10/10 for guile at least.

As I've pointed out, guido can, and can not be used as a racial slur (you seem to consistently avoid this point). I didn't use it in a racist manner, so I don't have any pangs of guilt. :)

Yeah, and in your case (suspiciously following on from an answer that gave a specifically Italian example) and together with your stereotyping and pathetic attempts to insinuate that it's okay because Italians are de facto racist anyway- it definitely WAS a racist slur.

I'm not interested in speaking your horrible language to a pigheaded Italian nationalist like yourself. But its funny how you can only make threats in your ugly language.

Can't speak Italian in other words? Funny- you seem to know so much and be so au fait with the Italian scene- ma non capisci o non vuoi parlare l'italiano? Why is Italian an ugly language? Okay, I'll say it in English, I'd like to see you come to Italy to a centro sociale and come out with all your racist crap. Why am I an Italian nationalist all of a sudden? So you go round using racial slurs against people, guido, wog, and when members of that community react they become nationalists.

Romanish through and through...

That last image you posted just shows how little you actually know.

*What if I put up a picture of crack dealers in the Bronx and wrote n____s? Then tried to worm my way out whining how it's in context and those guys probably call each other that anyway...and like I know a lot of black dudes and like my best friend's black and so like in context I wasn't really being a racist JERK!!!


(*I hasten to add I would never do that in the first place).

[Lt. Ferret]

yes you would you liar.

[RGacky3]

No problem with calling Mexican Americans "Panchos" either, I suppose?

Who calls Mexicans Panchos?

But thats not an equivalent, Cholo would be more of one, and i don't think anyone consideres that a racist term

[ComradeMan]

Who calls Mexicans Panchos?

But thats not an equivalent, Cholo would be more of one, and i don't think anyone consideres that a racist term

You see here's another problem. These words "pancho" and "cholo" etc, are not words I have ever even heard- I would be completely unaware of their connotations or potential for offending Mexican/Hispanic-Americans. On an international forum, like this one, we all need to be aware of how we could cause offense- even if it's inadvertently. However, generally, in my experience any kind of "nickname" that denotes a population group is usually offensive. Can we think of any that aren't?

[Bud Struggle]

Who calls Mexicans Panchos?

But thats not an equivalent, Cholo would be more of one, and i don't think anyone consideres that a racist term
Maybe it's just in Florida among whites. As in I "hired a couple of Panchos yesterday." Never heard the word Cholo, though.

[Robert]

However, generally, in my experience any kind of "nickname" that denotes a population group is usually offensive. Can we think of any that aren't?I think that's usually true. Two possible exceptions I can think of:

There is a Mexican white bun, like a pistolette, called a "bolillo" (bo-lee-yo). Mexicans sometimes refer to white guys as "bolillos." Funny thing ... they tend to think it more offensive than white guys do. I guess that when they use the term, they do mean it to be at least mildly derogatory.

But for some reason it doesn't hurt my feelings to hear my ethnic group referred to as "bolillos." The bolillo of the bakery, when fresh, is tasty and appetizing. And "bolillo" is a pleasant-sounding word as well. Unlike many I see in this thread. I suppose if it were spat at me, I wouldn't like it.

There is also the word "kicker," common in Texas and, I think, in Arizona.
See definition 2 here. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kicker)

"Kicker" is short for "shit-kicker" (a he-man that works on a ranch) and is roughly equivalent to "redneck." I think if a member of a minority group angrily referred to a cowboy as a "kicker," the cowboy would only be amused. Now ... *cough* ... If he were to call him a "dumb kicker," well, in that case, a frank and direct exchange of views might ensue.:lol:

[Robert]

I think "cholo" is more a look or a style, not an ethnicity or race. Kind of a "cool gangsta rapper" look, maybe. When I hear Mexicans use it, and I only hear Mexicans use it to refer to Mexicans of a certain style and attitude, it's not derogatory at all ... Shades, strapped undershirt, New York brim, baggy shorts, maybe a chain with a crucifix.

"Chicano" is a word I am uneasy with and do not use, except in extremely limited circumstances, as when a Mexican speaking to me in Spanish refers to another person, whose name he doesn't know but who he believe to be a U.S.-born hispanic, as "el chicano" or "un chicano." I might then use it as an identifier, just so he knows I am referring to the same person he is. I don't "feel" the etymology of it well enough to be comfortable with it.

But it isn't usually considered offensive or derogatory, either when used by a self-described chicano or otherwise.

As always, you add the wrong descriptive qualifier in front of it and you got trouble.

[RGacky3]

Kind of a "cool gangsta rapper" look, maybe. When I hear Mexicans use it, and I only hear Mexicans use it to refer to Mexicans of a certain style and attitude, it's not derogatory at all ... Shades, strapped undershirt, New York brim, baggy shorts, maybe a chain with a crucifix.


Thats how i understood the term guido.

Chicano , I use all the time, TO refer to .... myself.

[LC89]

Most nations being colonize before had white supremacy brainwash into their mind.

[ComradeMan]

Most nations being colonize before had white supremacy brainwash into their mind.

Bourgeois white supremacy.

I think sometimes, understandably, people forget what was going on in the mother countries too. If you see the attitudes expressed towards the "lower classes" and the absolute miserable conditions in which they lived of squalor and oppression with no voice- well, it makes you wonder. Of course, in the colonies this would not have been the perception hence my saying it's understandable.
See:-
E. Royston Pike (ed.), Human Documents of the Industrial Revolution in Britain (1966): Factory life and people

[MellowViper]

That video is hilarious. I can imagine Stormfront's reaction:

"While the Indians understand the supremacy of white skin as more beautiful and more pure, the use of beauty products will only mask the problem and not solve it."

I had a couple of jaw dropping movements with the whole series. On the whole it was spectacularly offensive. I mean, simply put, bonus points. The abject and honest racism on display is special.

...Ralph Wiggums "special"

[lines]

is tanning lotion cream racist if it makes you darker?

Only if they use the cream due to disliking their natural skin color.

[Lt. Ferret]

i visited death valley a few weeks ago and took my shirt off while hiking, am i a race traitor?

[bloodbeard]

That girl is definitely Indian, I don't know what your definition of looking Indian is?

Well if you say so. She could be indian but also she could be something else. Sometimes they use models who could pass as indian/desi but aren't really.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee9u9YofNLg

^Like this one who's actually russian.

[ComradeMan]

Well stereotypes of what people are supposed to look like don't always help, although there are undoubtedly predominant characteristics- a red-haired Amazonian indigenous person would be a surprise. But the Indian Subcontinent is very diverse, to talk of an Indian race makes as much sense as to talk of a Brazilian or American "race" with race being used in the traditional sense of the word- albeit defective.

Where is this girl from?

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8941/kalashgkd2.jpg

This image represents...


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~mille21m/pol116/srilanka/radhabee.jpg

And this is a "typical"....

http://thm-a03.yimg.com/nimage/903c1062b4ab021e (http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTf2uVrcpMk1oANkxWBQx./SIG=12r56qrc8/EXP=1288379925/**http%3a//www.indianshaadi.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/indian-groom.jpg)


They are all images from different parts of the Indian Subcontinent- Kalashk, Sinhalese Art, Hindustani

[empiredestoryer]

very sad... the indians should be proud of their race but should prouder of the fact that they got rid of the real whites [the british] who were blood sucking their nation for years well done india you are beautiful

[ComradeMan]

very sad... the indians should be proud of their race but should prouder of the fact that they got rid of the real whites [the british] who were blood sucking their nation for years well done india you are beautiful

What an idiotic comment, I'm sorry. They got rid of a capitalist colonialist regime, don't turn things into race issues when they are not. BTW the first president of India studied at British private education of which the ordinary working class prole in Britain would have only dreamt of.

[Ele'ill]

very sad... the indians should be proud of their race but should prouder of the fact that they got rid of the real whites [the british] who were blood sucking their nation for years well done india you are beautiful


They never got rid of them in the way you may think- the british actually bowed before the more violent resistance but negotiated with the more liberal peace resistance- which essentially sold India to neo-colonialism to a further extent- and set the stage for future exploitation by imperialists.

[RGacky3]

very sad... the indians should be proud of their race but should prouder of the fact that they got rid of the real whites [the british] who were blood sucking their nation for years well done india you are beautiful


Jesus Christ.

[ComradeMan]

The British Empire was not about making "white" British rich- The most fucked people in the British Empire were very often the British working classes, not to mention the poor fucking Irish- a million of whom starved to death! I'm not defending British Imperialism, as I would not defend any imperialism, but it kind of irritates me this thing that it's the British all the time. At the height of the Raj the majority of British people lived in abject poverty, probably worse than the colonies.

[RGacky3]

Which goes to the heart of the idiocy of the labor-aristocricy third-worldist idea.

[red cat]

The British Empire was not about making "white" British rich- The most fucked people in the British Empire were very often the British working classes, not to mention the poor fucking Irish- a million of whom starved to death! I'm not defending British Imperialism, as I would not defend any imperialism, but it kind of irritates me this thing that it's the British all the time. At the height of the Raj the majority of British people lived in abject poverty, probably worse than the colonies.

This is not true. The economic and military violence that British imperialism unleashed in the Indian subcontinent cannot be compared with anything happening inside Britain.

[Ele'ill]

True but I think ComradeMan was referring to the lackadaisical references to 'the British' when it was specifically (as usual) the top percentage raking in gains from their imperialist ventures.

So yes, I agree with both observations.

[red cat]

True but I think ComradeMan was referring to the lackadaisical references to 'the British' when it was specifically (as usual) the top percentage raking in gains from their imperialist ventures.

So yes, I agree with both observations.

I disagree with the "worse than colonies" part.

[Ele'ill]

I actually missed that the first time around- for a little while there I thought I was actually going to agree with one of Comrademan's statements.

[Manic Impressive]

One example could be a comparison between London and Philadelphia before the American revolution. Philadelphia had a higher literacy rate, higher infant mortality rate, higher life expectancy, better lit and maintained streets. It was an all round better place for a normal worker to live than London. Can't back up the claim that this was the same in India.

[WORLD]

As a woman of Indian Origin (of a NI descent) let me state right here and now that Indians are very diverse in their looks and I know the blonde girl is actually a PAKISTANI.:cool:
Some Stormfronter bastard was upset when it stated in his own 'words', 'I am really upset to see a Paki with real ginger hair, and in Pakistan and Afghanistan, red hair is more common than thought of. As for light skin being lionised that is true, but many of the hugest Bollywood draws have been the more traditional, dusky maidens like ~Rekha.:cool: And look at the Bachanan, who is a dark skinned Indo but his pulling power was that he was over 6ft tall, but him as a person is a different story.
The adverts like this one, are actually something that is similar to tanning adverts, because if Indian women wanted to be more European then they would be ditching the traditional clothes to start wearing western clothes like they do in Japan.:(
The idea of White Supermacy in India is laughable in many a way, and actually I have seen light skinned Indian men completely fall for a dusky lady.:cool:

[Crusade]

The "it's not race, it's class" arguments do kind of get annoying. It applies sometimes, but the rationalization for the mass colonization of non-white countries were that these people aren't fully human or they're savages. Working class whites and non-whites are even looked at differently. In fact, most white supremacists come from WORKING CLASS backgrounds. Racism IS a problem and does exist. It's not always the cause, but no one is saying that. I'm just sick of seeing out and out racism be glossed over as class issues. There could still be racism in a socialist society and it should be pointed out as such. I honestly don't think the scientific method being applied to explaining the skin color bias of certain societies would be used to explain something like homophobia. If a commercial is saying your ex left you because your skin isn't white enough, I don't give a shit if it's because generations ago farmers had tans and that meant you were poor and that somehow has sustained over decades. Point blank, the message of the commercial is white skin= better, buy this product to make your skin whiter. I don't care where it originated, there are different causes of racism depending on the country, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore racism as if class relations are the only conflict in society. And I'm so fucking sick of people acting as if thinking something is racist means you think everything is racist. If it's not your problem, then so be it, but you're not gonna silence the people who consider it an issue that needs to be confronted.

The class differences in a single country are vast, but so are the differences of the SAME class in a different country. If a carpenter in America complained about class relations to a kenyan worker, he'd probably look at you still as a wealthy American and not a fellow struggling worker.

[WORLD]

Anyway I will say if a Indian woman wants to have light skin let her, just as a European lady is having a tan. The Indian woman will still wear a sari though, but look at places like Japan were they are now actually going platinum blonde. Now that is more common than notions of White Supermacy in India.
I feel sorry for a Russian who is a Russian who has had the misfortune of a tan because the neo nazis are assholes who attack like a bunch of dogs.:mad:

[Crusade]

Anyway I will say if a Indian woman wants to have light skin let her, just as a European lady is having a tan. The Indian woman will still wear a sari though, but look at places like Japan were they are now actually going platinum blonde. Now that is more common than notions of White Supermacy in India.
I feel sorry for a Russian who is a Russian who has had the misfortune of a tan because the neo nazis are assholes who attack like a bunch of dogs.:mad:

Oh, don't get me wrong I don't think anything is wrong with someone wanting lighter skin and getting it. It's just saying you're gonna lose your boyfriend because your skin isn't light enough it's just... come on now really? Preferring lighter skin is different than saying people with white skin are ultimately better and are more deserving of your boyfriend (rofl).

[ComradeMan]

As a woman of Indian Origin (of a NI descent) let me state right here and now that Indians are very diverse in their looks and I know the blonde girl is actually a PAKISTANI.:cool:
Some Stormfronter bastard was upset when it stated in his own 'words', 'I am really upset to see a Paki with real ginger hair, and in Pakistan and Afghanistan, red hair is more common than thought of. As for light skin being lionised that is true, but many of the hugest Bollywood draws have been the more traditional, dusky maidens like ~Rekha.:cool: And look at the Bachanan, who is a dark skinned Indo but his pulling power was that he was over 6ft tall, but him as a person is a different story.
The adverts like this one, are actually something that is similar to tanning adverts, because if Indian women wanted to be more European then they would be ditching the traditional clothes to start wearing western clothes like they do in Japan.:(
The idea of White Supermacy in India is laughable in many a way, and actually I have seen light skinned Indian men completely fall for a dusky lady.:cool:


I think it's a cultural bias that has existed in all places. Italian women in Renaissance art have alabaster white skin to show... they weren't peasants working and toiling in the hot sun all day. I don't think it's a European vs. Non-European thing in particular.

PS I hope you notice that I said Indian Subcontinent and not India- I realised the blonde girl was from Pakistan- but I didn't want this to turn into a big mudfight about India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka- hence "Subcontinent". ;)

[Milk Sheikh]

It is good that these matters are being analyzed on a leftist forum (as it should be, and revleft is doing a damn fine job), but I am afraid they're being 'over analyzed' by some people here.

This fetish for lighter skin is just that, a fetish and nothing more; it has nothing to do with supremacy. It is all about poor people imitating the rich to feel good about themselves. It is silliness, if anything, and ought to be regarded as such.

[red cat]

There is very much racist mentality in India. Blacks and mongoloids are seen as inferior to whites and browns. This is also linked with the caste system. Most high-caste people tend to be of lighter shades than those from the lower castes. They also tend to have different physical features, such as a sharper nose etc. and claim to be Aryans.

[red cat]

The Indian woman will still wear a sari though, but look at places like Japan were they are now actually going platinum blonde. Now that is more common than notions of White Supermacy in India.


How many Indian upper-class working-women still wear the sari except in religious or traditional gatherings ?

[ComradeMan]

There is very much racist mentality in India. Blacks and mongoloids are seen as inferior to whites and browns. This is also linked with the caste system. Most high-caste people tend to be of lighter shades than those from the lower castes. They also tend to have different physical features, such as a sharper nose etc. and claim to be Aryans.

I know you are sincere but you need to take a bit of a check on that terminology you are using.

Blacks- black people
Mongoloids- no, dude- eastern asian/oriental* / far eastern
(this is also offensive to people who have Down's syndrome)
Whites- white people or Caucasians might be better
browns- ??? WTF are "browns"- darker skinned/olive skinned perhaps?

Not calling you out- just warning you that some people could see this as prejudiced language from you- which I do not think is the case.

PS *oriental- in Italian "orientale" ecc- is not offensive, it means far eastern (oriente- east) but someone told me in the English language it's now considered negatively. Perhaps someone could confirm this.

[red cat]

I know you are sincere but you need to take a bit of a check on that terminology you are using.

Blacks- black people
Mongoloids- no, dude- eastern asian/oriental* / far eastern
(this is also offensive to people who have Down's syndrome)
Whites- white people or Caucasians might be better
browns- ??? WTF are "browns"- darker skinned/olive skinned perhaps?

Not calling you out- just warning you that some people could see this as prejudiced language from you- which I do not think is the case.

PS *oriental- in Italian "orientale" ecc- is not offensive, it means far eastern (oriente- east) but someone told me in the English language it's now considered negatively. Perhaps someone could confirm this.

Thanks for the rectification. East-Asian instead of mongoloid henceforth, then. But does writing "white/black/brown people" instead of "white/black/brown" make much of a difference ?

Brown people are those who constitute most of the south Asian population. Their skin-colour is mostly brown, not olive. :)

[Manic Impressive]

I think us whities should campaign to be called Pink. I'd just love to see the guys on stormfront call themselves pink supremacists.

[ComradeMan]

Thanks for the rectification. East-Asian instead of mongoloid henceforth, then. But does writing "white/black/brown people" instead of "white/black/brown" make much of a difference ?

Brown people are those who constitute most of the south Asian population. Their skin-colour is mostly brown, not olive. :)

That's fine. I am glad you took it in the right comradely spirit! ;)

I think it's better, if we have to, to say white people, black people etc instead of just using colour adjectives- let's use the word people! It helps us remember we are talking about people. I don't know about your geopolitical situation but where I am when people start just using the "adjectives" what usually follows isn't too pleasant.... ;)

[ComradeMan]

I think us whities should campaign to be called Pink. I'd just love to see the guys on stormfront call themselves pink supremacists.


LOLL! Where I am most white people... well, they're rather brown!!! Gets rather silly really doesn't it?

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_N-lLFhD7bxE/S9cUR4DnGCI/AAAAAAAADmA/u3qraYBvtvM/sophia_loren%5B4%5D.jpg?imgmax=800

[Ele'ill]

Comrademan, ever been to Naples, Italy? What did you think of it?

[ComradeMan]

Comrademan, ever been to Naples, Italy? What did you think of it?

Napoli.... ah.... Napoli....
che gioia,
che tristezza,
che vergogna,
che bellezza
- ahimè,
mia bella Napoli.

DXdKKDYabxU

[Ele'ill]

So then it's like Philadelphia- neat. I'm first generation from Naples.

[ComradeMan]

So then it's like Philadelphia- neat. I'm first generation from Naples.

Naples is a great city despite everything, and that everything is a big, big, serious everything....

but...

romanus sum!!!

http://digilander.libero.it/romaeterna/immagini/roma-aeterna.gif

[Milk Sheikh]

There is very much racist mentality in India. Blacks and mongoloids are seen as inferior to whites and browns. This is also linked with the caste system. Most high-caste people tend to be of lighter shades than those from the lower castes. They also tend to have different physical features, such as a sharper nose etc. and claim to be Aryans.

I am not sure that caste is relevant to skin color. The upper-castes in South India are darker than the lower-castes in the North! Skin color is lighter in the north and gets darker in the south - no relevance to caste.

Point is, we don't have to complicate a simple, superficial matter by introducing caste, race, and such factors. The whole thing can be reduced to members of conquered nations trying to imitate their conquerors (to feel good about themselves). It is psychology 101.

[red cat]

I am not sure that caste is relevant to skin color. The upper-castes in South India are darker than the lower-castes in the North! Skin color is lighter in the north and gets darker in the south - no relevance to caste.

Not true.




Point is, we don't have to complicate a simple, superficial matter by introducing caste, race, and such factors. The whole thing can be reduced to members of conquered nations trying to imitate their conquerors (to feel good about themselves). It is psychology 101. Caste and race do matter and are inter-linked. To deny this is to deny reality. Your claim is a gross over-simplification that distorts the real picture.

[Milk Sheikh]

Not true.

Are you denying that South Indians are generally darker than North Indians?


Caste and race do matter and are inter-linked. To deny this is to deny reality. Your claim is a gross over-simplification that distorts the real picture.

This topic has nothing to do with race or caste; it is about people having a fetish for light skin.

[red cat]

Are you denying that South Indians are generally darker than North Indians?

You claimed that upper castes of south India are darker than lower castes of the north. This is not true.



This topic has nothing to do with race or caste; it is about people having a fetish for light skin.The very title of the thread suggests otherwise.

[Milk Sheikh]

You claimed that upper castes of south India are darker than lower castes of the north. This is not true.

I am an Indian and I know this for a fact. An upper caste Tamil, for instance, is darker than a lower-caste Punjabi or Kashmiri.


The very title of the thread suggests otherwise.

Then change the title.:) It is clearly misleading. An apt title would be: Indians' fetish for lighter skin. Bringing in supremacy - and that too for an ad - is a bit silly.

[red cat]

I am an Indian and I know this for a fact. An upper caste Tamil, for instance, is darker than a lower-caste Punjabi or Kashmiri.

Might be true for Kashmiris, but certainly not true for any place to the south of Kashmir, not even Punjab. An average high-caste Tamil brahmin is much fairer than a lower caste Punjabi. Sometimes they are as fair as upper-caste Kashmiris.


Then change the title.:) It is clearly misleading. An apt title would be: Indians' fetish for lighter skin. Bringing in supremacy - and that too for an ad - is a bit silly.

The ad is just a mild indicator of the severe racism prevalent in India and the discussion should be as deep as possible.

[spinosaurus01]

Not exactly white supremacy but ooook .__.

[Milk Sheikh]

Might be true for Kashmiris, but certainly not true for any place to the south of Kashmir, not even Punjab. An average high-caste Tamil brahmin is much fairer than a lower caste Punjabi. Sometimes they are as fair as upper-caste Kashmiris.

I am Tambram and as dark as the one in comrademan's picture. So are 99% of the Tambrahms I know - and I know a lot. In sharp contrast, punjabis are lily white. Since you're living in the west, you may not know much about this. But the point is, yes, caste is evil. But let's see how it relates to class instead of reducing it to color. That'll be more effective in combating caste system.


The ad is just a mild indicator of the severe racism prevalent in India and the discussion should be as deep as possible.

Indians are not privileged enough to be racist. Look at KKK, nazis, BNP, and all those guys. Compare them with Indians and you'll see that Indians are simply imitating the west (and that projects the illusion of racism). It is similar to what XX mentioned in another thread: Indians try to act white and abuse one another. It is silliness, not racism.

[ComradeMan]

Indians try to act white and abuse one another. It is silliness, not racism.

So acting "white" and abusing people on the basis of skin-colour... is not racism?
:confused:

I think you can qualify as being racist without having to beat people up or throw them in gas chambers.

[Lt. Ferret]

i dont think you can make assumptions on indians being priviliged enough to do anything. i can get into it but anyone can be racist due to my multiple systems theory. i

[Milk Sheikh]

So acting "white" and abusing people on the basis of skin-colour... is not racism?
:confused:

Why are they being mean and abusive? Is it because they have a racist theory to explain it? In that case, yes, they're racist. But in the case of Indians, they're simply imitating their white masters, as conquered nations are wont to do. This is a problem throughout the nonwhite world, so I'd rather see it as imitation than racism. Think of workers who buy expensive clothes, gadgets etc. and pretend they're rich - would you say they're bourgeois and wish to exploit workers? No, they're mere imitators.

[ComradeMan]

Why are they being mean and abusive? Is it because they have a racist theory to explain it? In that case, yes, they're racist. But in the case of Indians, they're simply imitating their white masters, as conquered nations are wont to do. This is a problem throughout the nonwhite world, so I'd rather see it as imitation than racism. Think of workers who buy expensive clothes, gadgets etc. and pretend they're rich - would you say they're bourgeois and wish to exploit workers? No, they're mere imitators.

That is the most pathetic apologism I have ever come across.

They're imitating their former colonial masters, last time I looked India and Pakistan were no longer under "white" colonial rule for a good 50 or more years.

Are there no racist words in any Indian languages?


Hints of the caste system can be seen in the Rig Veda written in the late second millennium B.C.E. It was clearly in place by the time of the later Vedic texts (c. 1000–500 B.C.E.). These Sanskrit texts are generally seen as products of an Aryan migration or invasion, and they teach a sacrificial religious system known as Brahmanism or Vedism, which would in later centuries develop into Hinduism. Deeply concerned with issues of purity and pollution, the Vedic texts divided people into different groupings called varnas ("colors") at the top of which was a priestly caste called to set themselves apart from the others.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/10957/Race-Racism-in-Asia-Race-Racism-in-India.html


Notions of the Aryan race also pervaded nineteenth-century discussions among Indian reformers, suggesting how the concept could not be avoided when seeking any fundamental re-shaping of Indian society. For example, Dayanand Saraswati (1824–1883), a radical reformer, criticized contemporary Hinduism and argued that it had distorted the virtues of Aryan civilization.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/10957/Race-Racism-in-Asia-Race-Racism-in-India.html



Racism is not being snobbish, being snobbish is classism, but not racism- unless you are saying that the lower classes or "castes" in India correspond to racial/ethnic distinctions, in which case given that those form the oldest parts of Indian culture dating from the Vedas it somehwhat undermines your point about "imitating" the colonial oppressors.

[Milk Sheikh]

That is the most pathetic apologism I have ever come across.

Thank you. I aim to please.:rolleyes:


They're imitating their former colonial masters, last time I looked India and Pakistan were no longer under "white" colonial rule for a good 50 or more years.

So? They're still not the privileged class, so they imitate the privileged class. Why is this so hard to accept? Poor people imitate the rich, conquered people imitate conquerors, and so forth.

Caste system is a problem because of its rigid class distinctions and has nothing to do with skin color. I myself am upper-caste but extremely dark. Even otherwise, how can caste system explain racism in China or Pakistan (which is Muslim country) or Arabia or Philipines, Malaysia, and so many other nonwhite countries where there's no caste system. There's only one answer: colonialism. Because they were ruled by whites, 'white standards' have become universal even among natives.

Please note that I am justifying neither caste system nor racism. I am only saying that the former should only be used while analyzing Indian class system; it should have nothing to do with skin color. The latter doesn't apply to Indians and nonwhites in general because they're not a privileged class. Calling everyone racist is hardly a rational approach. And relating caste to color is also silly because there are lots of upper-caste people like me who're dark-skinned. It's better to relate caste to class and thus expose how barbaric it is.

[Lt. Ferret]

youre relegating 1 billion people to serfdom. thats not applicable. they have their own systems, their own social problems, their own issues. they are not all goddamn peasants because theyre brown.

leave your racism at the door when you come in, please.

[red cat]

I am Tambram and as dark as the one in comrademan's picture. So are 99% of the Tambrahms I know - and I know a lot. In sharp contrast, punjabis are lily white. Since you're living in the west, you may not know much about this. But the point is, yes, caste is evil. But let's see how it relates to class instead of reducing it to color. That'll be more effective in combating caste system.

I think it is much lower than 99%, but for now let's assume that it is 99%, as you claim. Below is the picture of a Tamil brahmin.

http://img.bosey.co.in/uploaded_images/Cho_Ramaswamy-745848.jpg

As we see, he is significantly fairer than most Indians. Within brahmins, there are sub-castes, and the highest ranking ones are whites, even in Tamil Nadu. They consciously maintain purity by not marrying outside their sub-castes. Similarly in Kerala the topmost Nambudiri brahmins are white. There are such sub-castes among the Kshatriyas (warrior caste) too. The Travancore royal family of Kerala is significantly fairer than an average north Indian.

One theory that explains some of the high caste south Indians being very dark is that their ancestors were surrendering members of Dravidian tribes that brought under control by Aryans. They helped to subjugate their tribes and were granted permission into the Aryan society as reward.

Also, all Punjabis, rather most of them, are not lily white.


Indians are not privileged enough to be racist. Look at KKK, nazis, BNP, and all those guys. Compare them with Indians and you'll see that Indians are simply imitating the west (and that projects the illusion of racism). It is similar to what XX mentioned in another thread: Indians try to act white and abuse one another. It is silliness, not racism.

The KKK Nazis or BNP are more talked or read about because they are western. Otherwise, what Indian racists have been engaging in since time immemorial would probably shame Hitler. Let alone the systematic brutalities they engage in even today, in the two great Indian epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the lower castes are depicted as monsters and monkeys, and it is even mentioned that the just punishment for a kshudra ( lowermost caste, literally meaning "little") who dares to listen to the scriptures being read is to have molten lead poured into his ears. If this is not racism then what is ?

[ComradeMan]

There's only one answer: colonialism. Because they were ruled by whites, 'white standards' have become universal even among natives.


Absolute complete and utter shit. The caste system long predated the arrival of the whites- to try and blame the ills inherent in Indian society is the worst piece of outdated post-colonialism apologism, dare I say blamism that I have heard in a long while.

The Maharajahs with all their riches, predating the British period- yeah, they learned snobbery from the British, they learned racism from the British- don't talk shit.

By the way, they weren't exactly ruled by whites either were they? Not in the sense you are making out, and didn't Nehru go to Eton? Or some exclusive British private school- beyond the aspirations of about 95% of the "white" British population?

Just accept it- Indians can be just as racist as anyone else- stop this pathetic tacit nationalism that we must exonerate our own people and blame everyone else for their faults all the time.

Racism has existed a long time and probably well before the colonial period. In India it was institutionalised through the caste system well before the Iron Age.

Racism is not just about colour of skin either.

[Milk Sheikh]

Absolute complete and utter shit. The caste system long predated the arrival of the whites- to try and blame the ills inherent in Indian society is the worst piece of outdated post-colonialism apologism, dare I say blamism that I have heard in a long while.


*Sigh*

You keep evading two points:

1) In non-Hindu societies where there's no caste system, your logic would fail. So we're forced to consider colonialism as the cause of racism.

2) Even in Hindu societies, caste system is simply class oppression; it has nothing to do with skin color. Else, how come I am a dark upper-caste and my neighbor a light lower-caste?

The above two points will force us to consider something other than caste system as the reason for this sort of behavior: colonialism.

You not only ignore my points but falsely accuse me of nationalism when I am doing my best to see the real cause of this problem. If we rule out caste as a factor, then we can only see colonialism as the primary reason - because it's also more recent and more powerful.

[#FF0000]

Race as we know it has only existed siiiince maayyybe let's say the 1600's if we want to be generous but I think it might actually have been much later.

But I think it'd be interesting to look into skin color and caste. Is skin color relevant to caste? Since when?

[MarxSchmarx]

A bit OT, but here's a thread I made in discrimination from a while back about Hitler's popularity among some Indians for those interested:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-mein-kampf-t137210/index.html?t=137210

[red cat]

Race as we know it has only existed siiiince maayyybe let's say the 1600's if we want to be generous but I think it might actually have been much later.

But I think it'd be interesting to look into skin color and caste. Is skin color relevant to caste? Since when?

There has been a very rigid discrimination in India against "non Aryans" for thousands of years. The Sanskrit word for caste itself is "varna" which means colour. It was used to distinguish between the white Aryans and the black/brown Dravidians. The Hindu epics systematically categorize non-Aryans as subhuman beings or monsters.

[Milk Sheikh]

A bit OT, but here's a thread I made in discrimination from a while back about Hitler's popularity among some Indians for those interested:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/reading-mein-kampf-t137210/index.html?t=137210

That has nothing to do with supremacy and all that. It's about Indians admiring (and wanting to emulate) a powerful leader from the west. Let's not overthink this.

[Milk Sheikh]

There has been a very rigid discrimination in India against "non Aryans" for thousands of years. The Sanskrit word for caste itself is "varna" which means colour. It was used to distinguish between the white Aryans and the black/brown Dravidians. The Hindu epics systematically categorize non-Aryans as subhuman beings or monsters.

Caste discrimination is essentially class discrimination; it's about rich exploiting the poor. Why bring in skin color when very few Indians (mostly in the North) are actually light enough to be considered 'white'. Honestly, an average upper-caste Indian is not going to be considered 'white' in the west; he'll be treated as any black person.

[ComradeMan]

Race as we know it has only existed siiiince maayyybe let's say the 1600's if we want to be generous but I think it might actually have been much later.

But I think it'd be interesting to look into skin color and caste. Is skin color relevant to caste? Since when?

I know that is a standard view, but I don't really follow that at all. I think it falls down on a number of things.

1= Prior to the great European colonial expansions of Spain, Portugal, England, Holland and France people of different colour-races probably had next to no contact with each other. So it's difficult to tell.


2 = Prior to this period there was contact between peoples, especially in the times of the Roman Empire when a form of racism expressed itself in ethnic nationalism.


3= Historical anti-Semitism in Europe was a form of racism was it not? Pre-dating the colonial period.

4= Areas of Spain and Southern Italy that were under Moorish/Saracen control also left behind some racism, terms referring to Moors or Arabs and "Turks" becoming racial slurs. To this day people (racist) from Northern Italy refer to the Southern Italians as terroni (mucksavages), "turchi", "marocchini" and so on...

5= In Shakespeare's Othello (1603)- the subject of white v black racism is also handled.

Normans v Anglo-Saxons (did this make the English class system?)
Anglo-Saxons v Celts (the word "Welsh" means foreigner or slave in its original Saxon derivation).
Celts v Anglo-Saxons (the latter being considered "heathens", so religion came into it)
Romans v the "barbarians".
etc etc etc

African racism towards "pygmy" groups of people...

The Arabs also had racist terms- "hubshi" for example for black people.

China that referred to the "barbarians", i.e. non-Chinese and the conflicts within China between Han and non-Han groups.

Japan where no foreigner could set foot.

I have no doubt that the European expansions of the 16th century onwards and slavery confirmed and institutionalised racism of a sort, especially in terms of white and non-white but I think it has been around for a long time in many societies.

Blaming all racism today on the former "white colonial masters" is in my opinion an historical lie and a covenient way to avoid some of the more unpleasant truths about all our ancestors- i.e. they were pretty damn racist given the chance.

[red cat]

Caste discrimination is essentially class discrimination; it's about rich exploiting the poor. Why bring in skin color when very few Indians (mostly in the North) are actually light enough to be considered 'white'. Honestly, an average upper-caste Indian is not going to be considered 'white' in the west; he'll be treated as any black person.

The more important point is that they are fairer than an average lower caste Indian and consciously relate themselves to whites or Aryans. Every upper caste Indian does not have to be a pure white in order to engage in racism. The caste system is more complex than a bourgeois class discrimination or simply rich exploiting the poor; otherwise people belonging to upper castes would never dare to insult dalits who are much richer than themselves.

[ComradeMan]

The more important point is that they are fairer than an average lower caste Indian and consciously relate themselves to whites or Aryans. Every upper caste Indian does not have to be a pure white in order to engage in racism. The caste system is more complex than a bourgeois class discrimination or simply rich exploiting the poor; otherwise people belonging to upper castes would never dare to insult dalits who are much richer than themselves.

Yeah- associating racism with skin colour alone is inappropriate.

In Japan there is a lot of racism towards Korean people and Chinese people. Colour doesn't really come into it. I would say Korean people and Japanese people, at least to me, are of the same "racial type".

I personally believe that skin colour is the last determinant in real racism but because it's the most obvious trait that may distinguish one person from the other it gets "picked on" the most.

Could you distinguish a Jewish person from a German or Pole in the 1930s and 1940s?

Were all Germans tall, square-jawed aryan blonds? Were all Jewish people "dark and semitic with hooked noses"- no, it's just bullshit.

[RGacky3]

That has nothing to do with supremacy and all that. It's about Indians admiring (and wanting to emulate) a powerful leader from the west. Let's not overthink this.

See, there's your problem.

[Fabrizio]

white=european; european=wealth/power; wealth/power=attractive. It's the same in every country where the majority are dark.

[Milk Sheikh]

white=european; european=wealth/power; wealth/power=attractive. It's the same in every country where the majority are dark.

"Amen" is all I can say; your post nails it completely. Not only dark-skinned but generally non-western people believe in the white=power+wealth equation - and hence the fetish.

[ComradeMan]

"Amen" is all I can say; your post nails it completely. Not only dark-skinned but generally non-western people believe in the white=power+wealth equation - and hence the fetish.

It doesn't prove anything when the phenomenon has existed since time immemorial.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Indian Maharajhas copied "western bourgeois" white people out of a sense of inferiority and shame of their poverty? Or Chinese and Japanese princesses "whitened" to be like the Europeans- who they had some pretty externally racist attitudes towards?

No.... I don't think this is a kite that will fly...

[Milk Sheikh]

It doesn't prove anything when the phenomenon has existed since time immemorial.

Are you seriously trying to tell us that Indian Maharajhas copied "western bourgeois" white people out of a sense of inferiority and shame of their poverty? Or Chinese and Japanese princesses "whitened" to be like the Europeans- who they had some pretty externally racist attitudes towards?

No.... I don't think this is a kite that will fly...

I give up.:( It's impossible to convince people who twist my words.

All I am saying is, if we look at the general picture, whites are a privileged class. I am not talking about individuals, in which case there could be poor whites and rich nonwhites. I am talking about the overall picture, which is why even rich nonwhites feel inferior (because even though they're individually rich, they still don't belong to the privileged class) and poor whites feel superior (like racists, for instance, who identify with rich whites even though they're individually poor).

[ComradeMan]

I give up.:( It's impossible to convince people who twist my words.

All I am saying is, if we look at the general picture, whites are a privileged class. I am not talking about individuals, in which case there could be poor whites and rich nonwhites. I am talking about the overall picture, which is why even rich nonwhites feel inferior (because even though they're individually rich, they still don't belong to the privileged class) and poor whites feel superior (like racists, for instance, who identify with rich whites even though they're individually poor).

Because you are talking shit.

whites are a privileged class- no some privileged people are white. BTW are there no privileged non-whites in the world---- oil sheikhs for example.

The rest of your points are completely divorced from any historical perspective.

You're just trying to say Indians are racist, and if some are then it's because of the evil white people- which reveals more about your racism and stereotyping.