Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[sirdj]

I've got a 'A' word in mind when I think about you with respect to your recent contributions to Cricket Web - and it's not 'Arm Pits'.

Do you really think that your opinion of me is worth a fig??

 

[sirdj]

I have been called an "English bastard" on many occasions in the past.

Any minority can be on the receiving end of racism - even in these more enlightened times, there are a number of places even in and around a cosmopolitan city like Dublin I wouldn't dream of going to, because if I happened to let it slip that I was English (i.e. opened my mouth), I just might end up leaving in a box.

Or isn't it racism if it's one white abusing another?

Your country's issues with Ireland are political and not racial in nature. The Irish wont beat you up because you are white, but because you're English.

 

[Pratters]

If you like one more because one is more intelligent, that's not racism. Let's say you think one is more handsome than the other, that's not racism. But to purely differentiate based on skin colour...that's racism. We aren't all of one pure race. We are mixed. One racial trait comes from one group, another from another group. You can have brothers who do exhibit these differences. So, bias because of racial traits...is...exactly...racism.

I disagree with you on this and don't see how you can term discriminating between brothers based on who is fairer and who is darker as racism. I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you on this.

Cheers.

 

[shortpitched713]

That's racism. What are you missing here? Even siblings can have different physical traits which come from different races that exist in them.

 

[howardj]

I'd say many, many more people, at least nowadays in Australia anyway, get discriminated against and vilified based on their weight and their looks rather than their race. There's no outrage though.

 

[Davey]

There are a number of Afro American guys in our universities here down South.. We have a huge population of them (in 100s) staying in a few hotels about 5 to 10 mins walk from my place... They are getting on just fine..... And the thing about racism or however you wanna put it is, a number of these Afro American or whatever guys tend to have other vices... HItting on girls, have casual affairs or flings or one night stands (these things are viewed much much differently here than elsewhere) and when you start including the fact that taking drinks (and drugs, although that is a bad thing anywhere, I guess) is seen as a bad thing in most of our country, you can see why those people are not exactly welcome guests in every home.... The point is, fairer skinned guys go through these issues too, but it doesn't make for great print and hardly ever comes out....


You honestly need to live in INdia to understand what goes on here and juz painting everything under the brush of racism is extremely naive, at best....

So what? anyone can do that, that is a generalisation you always get bad apples in every race... its just elements like the media who try to manipulate it into some kind of massive "oh no this minority is causing havoc" bull****..

i honestly think you are in the minority with your way of thinking, alot of indians i know dont think like that especially having probably experienced it themselves..

 

[silentstriker]

I'd say many, many more people, at least nowadays in Australia anyway, get discriminated against and vilified based on their weight and their looks rather than their race. There's no outrage though.

Fatties need to unite. We'll stop buying pies, and you just watch the economy collapse.

 

[howardj]

Fatties need to unite. We'll stop buying pies, and you just watch the economy collapse.

I used to be jumbo in high school.

It was not a great experience.

But yeah, the pies were tops though.

 

[jeevan]

Some very interesting own goals in this thread. Educational, to say the least. I'm not interested in claiming any high moral ground on this (I live in Australia and my mother was born in Belgium, and King Leopold II murdered and maimed A LOT of Africans) but it seems to me that there are certainly some (dare I say it, middle class) Indians here who really do appear to be in some kind of denial.

BTW given the discussion taking place immediately preceding my comments, I'm not referring to Pratyush, who, while I'm not sure of the value of the distinction he appears to be making, isn't denying that racism exists in his country.

Maybe I am in denial about others being in denial, but it is simply impossible for Indians to claim to be relatively free of "ism"s (is kind of like saying that we dont lynch people because we dont literally hang them - but use other means to same effect) .

It is slightly pointless in general to classify and prioritize the isms. About racism in particular, one can say is most Indians are not racist (but that might be because most Indians have never really met a person of a different race leave alone had an opportunity to know of, and be able to excercise, their prejudice.)

In particular, in this case classifying and prioritizing 'ism's became an issue because the ICC rules (curiously) condemns some but not all abusive behavior, and even the condemned behaviors are punished very differently. ( 'monkey' = 3 match ban, 'mother f***' = $3K fine, "son of a night soil carrier" - probably nothing because it is not in the abuse statute and dictionary).

 

[shankar]

as you know the aryans were the warrior race and had conquered and more or less enslaved the dravidians especially in south india which led to the demise of the indus valley civilization...the aryans were the significantly fairer-skinned group and considered that as one of their marks of superiority over the darker-skinned dravidians...

Several things wrong with that. First of all, no one knows whether the IVC is dravidian or not. The script has not been deciphered yet. Secondly the Aryan invasion of India is a 19th century theory that no serious scholar takes seriously. The present day idea is that there was a migration of 'aryans' into India and there was a long period of acculturation.

...casteists have the belief that the higher castes(brahmins and kshatriyas) were descended from the aryan race that invaded most of india centuries ago and that the two lower castes(the vaishyas and the shudras, especially the shudras) were dravidian descendants..

Like I said above, the only people who ever had this idea of fair skinned Aryans invading India and suppressing Dravidians are the people in Europe who proposed the theory in the 19th century. In India the Dravidian party in Tamil Nadu, when it was formed was based on such thinking, but it has hardly made any effect on the people. But apart from people who actually read this theory in textbooks nobody has any idea of aryan and dravidian races (Of course the dravidian classification as a language family makes sense).

 

[Anil]

Several things wrong with that. First of all, no one knows whether the IVC is dravidian or not. The script has not been deciphered yet. Secondly the Aryan invasion of India is a 19th century theory that no serious scholar takes seriously. The present day idea is that there was a migration of 'aryans' into India and there was a long period of acculturation.

Like I said above, the only people who ever had this idea of fair skinned Aryans invading India and suppressing Dravidians are the people in Europe who proposed the theory in the 19th century. In India the Dravidian party in Tamil Nadu, when it was formed was based on such thinking, but it has hardly made any effect on the people. But apart from people who actually read this theory in textbooks nobody has any idea of aryan and dravidian races (Of course the dravidian classification as a language family makes sense).

i first studied this in history in school and since have read and heard some on the topic(from indians, not europeans)...haven't heard anything that would point to this idea being scoffed at like that...can you point out something tangible that supports what you are saying?

 

[jeevan]

i first studied this in history in school and since have read and heard some on the topic(from indians, not europeans)...haven't heard anything that would point to this idea being scoffed at like that...can you point out something tangible that supports what you are saying?

Anil, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been largely discarded. The biggest evidence against it is in the lack of genetic diversity along the lines that such a theory will need. Was not possible before DNA fingerprinting was advanced (ie until recently). Even Wikipedia has a decent summary on the DNA part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_races_in_India

 

[Anil]

Anil, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been largely discarded. The biggest evidence against it is in the lack of genetic diversity along the lines that such a theory will need. Was not possible before DNA fingerprinting was advanced (ie until recently). Even Wikipedia has a decent summary on the DNA part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_races_in_India

thanks! it certainly looks like i am a little behind the times on this...it's just that having studied this in school and having heard this opinion from several so-called upper caste folks who identified themselves as of aryan descent, i sort of accepted it as history...

 

[sirdj]

Anil, the Aryan Invasion Theory has been largely discarded. The biggest evidence against it is in the lack of genetic diversity along the lines that such a theory will need. Was not possible before DNA fingerprinting was advanced (ie until recently). Even Wikipedia has a decent summary on the DNA part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_definitions_of_races_in_India

We are now discussing anthropology.....which is a bit strange for this forum and this thread.

The Aryan Invasion theory is being argued......which is not the same as been discarded. To use a powerful word such as 'DNA fingerprinting' to conclusively end an argument is incorrect too as DNA fingerprinting has also stated that European markers exist :-

Recent advances in molecular genetics have opened a promising approach to settle these questions, although the evidence at this stage remains inconclusive. Bamshad et al. studied the DNA of people from the Andhra region of Southern India and compared them to Africans, Europeans and East Asians.The mitochondrial DNA (transmitted matrilineally) of all castes was more similar to that of East Asians than of Africans or Europeans. The DNA of the Y-chromosome (transmitted patrilineally) of all castes was however more similar to that of Europeans than of East Asians or Africans. Moreover the higher castes were more similar to Europeans than were the lower castes. The authors conclude that "Indians are of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture" due to the Aryan invasion. The majority of the Aryan invaders were men who transmitted their European Y-chromosome to their sons born from the native women and placed themselves at the top of the caste hierarchy.

The Aryan Invasion theory was based on studies of language, customs etc which has not yet been solidly refuted.

Whats funny is that Indian proponents of the theory are mostly of Northern descent while Indian opponents of the theory are of South descent. A case of biased opinion if there ever was one.

 

[jeevan]

We are now discussing anthropology.....which is a bit strange for this forum and this thread.

The Aryan Invasion theory is being argued......which is not the same as been discarded. To use a powerful word such as 'DNA fingerprinting' to conclusively end an argument is incorrect too as DNA fingerprinting has also stated that European markers exist :-

Recent advances in molecular genetics have opened a promising approach to settle these questions, although the evidence at this stage remains inconclusive. Bamshad et al. studied the DNA of people from the Andhra region of Southern India and compared them to Africans, Europeans and East Asians.The mitochondrial DNA (transmitted matrilineally) of all castes was more similar to that of East Asians than of Africans or Europeans. The DNA of the Y-chromosome (transmitted patrilineally) of all castes was however more similar to that of Europeans than of East Asians or Africans. Moreover the higher castes were more similar to Europeans than were the lower castes. The authors conclude that "Indians are of proto-Asian origin with West Eurasian admixture" due to the Aryan invasion. The majority of the Aryan invaders were men who transmitted their European Y-chromosome to their sons born from the native women and placed themselves at the top of the caste hierarchy.

The Aryan Invasion theory was based on studies of language, customs etc which has not yet been solidly refuted.

Whats funny is that Indian proponents of the theory are mostly of Northern descent while Indian opponents of the theory are of South descent. A case of biased opinion if there ever was one.

All right then DNA studies merely "have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent." and not debunked the AIT. I suppose you'd be ready with your horse taming argument next. (I can guess where you got this above quote from).

Not interested in discussing this any further , either in this forum or elsewhere. I just wanted to bring to Anil's attention certain evidence on racial composition in India - because too many of us have been miseducated about this stuff.

 

[sirdj]

I suppose you'd be ready with your horse taming argument next.

Clear case of prejudice here

(I can guess where you got this above quote from).

Why don't you go out and say it instead of insinuating.

Not interested in discussing this any further , either in this forum or elsewhere. I just wanted to bring to Anil's attention certain evidence on racial composition in India - because too many of us have been miseducated about this stuff.

Anyways.....why do you have to take such a lot of offense to what I said??? I just stated that the argument on the issue is not over & there is sufficient evidence to back the original theory as well.

Boy are you being defensive!!

 

[shankar]

The Aryan Invasion theory is being argued......which is not the same as been discarded. The Aryan Invasion theory was based on studies of language, customs etc which has not yet been solidly refuted.

Nah, the dominant present day theory is of an Aryan Migration theory. The idea of an invasion and domination of Aryans over Dravidians has been discarded. The scholars arguing for an 'Aryan' migration usually get annoyed when the opponents of the theory like hindutva supporters mischaracterise their position as supporters of an invasion theory.

The migration theory of course is based on very sound philological evidence i.e. that the original homeland of Indo-european speakers must have been outside India. Apart from philology though there isn't much other evidence.

Whats funny is that Indian proponents of the theory are mostly of Northern descent while Indian opponents of the theory are of South descent. A case of biased opinion if there ever was one.

Where do you get this idea? In India the biggest opponents of the 'aryans came from outside' theory are hindutva supporters who are mostly north-indians. The supporters probably come from the left parties. But most Indians are either unaware or don't care much about the issue.

 

[honestbharani]

So what? anyone can do that, that is a generalisation you always get bad apples in every race... its just elements like the media who try to manipulate it into some kind of massive "oh no this minority is causing havoc" bull****..

i honestly think you are in the minority with your way of thinking, alot of indians i know dont think like that especially having probably experienced it themselves..

dont think like what?????


You are talking about people putting up with negative stuff when they are looking for rooms etc.. See SS' posts about being an African student in Vadodara. You never get the same kind of stories about say an American (a white one, obviously) simply because it doesn't make for great print. I happen to know about 10 to 12 African guys as well as almost the same number of European guys were kicked out of their boarding hotel because of some of their "activities" in the night. Of course, none of what they did would have been seen to have been wrong in most of their home countries, and even perhaps in some parts of India, but that was enough for them to be thrown out. Our local tabloid only highlighted the fact that the African guys were kicked out, conveniently ignoring the 10 or so Europeans who met the same fate...


I haven't gone through all the replies to my posts yet...

I will put it this way. Racism in the sense of oppressing the dark skinned people and treating them as slaves to the fairer skinned ones has never existed in India. I guess some of our tabloids perhaps got the best way to define what does exist in India... "soft racism" or bias based on color or tint of your skin... And maybe some other preconceived notions about certain racist guys.. AFAIC, it is not right to group what happened in America, Australia and some other European countries that come under the word "Racism" along with this... This kind of bias and prejudices exist everywhere and is based on other factors apart from race too and every one of them is just as bad as the other...


And anyways, I am still wondering why exactly is it more offensive when a person X calls Y (an African guy, if you will) a monkey when he treats others of the same race with dignity, respect and treats them the same as anyone else. IF he only has a problem with THAT particular person and calls him a monkey to refer to how he acts, how is it any worse than the same Y calling X a bastard or a son of a so and so etc????????? It is only if you know or feel that X has a bias against the whole race that you can call it racism, for me..........


I am not arguing that it should not be a sensitive issue to someone like Symonds, btw.. I am talking more in general...

 

[sideshowtim]

Don't argue with him guys. I got banned after arguing that racism has existed in India in some way, shape or form against him. You're getting into dangerous territory.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't argue with him guys. I got banned after arguing that racism has existed in India in some way, shape or form against him. You're getting into dangerous territory.

FYI, that is not why you got banned.