coffee_rules Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: "Indians from India" can decide for themselves what is offensive and what isn't. Its not for "Indians from America" or "Indians with an identity crisis" to tell them what they can and can't find offensive. F*** off with your imperialistic attitude. Maybe "Indians" like you should stop promoting "densensitization" on the subject of killing animals and eating them for food? Now THAT is ugly to see. WTF! We all lived in india before coming to America and know what is good and bad. I have been called nicknames based on physical traits and I didn't like it. So, it is bad if we are in india or in America. Don't justify this behaviour just because Indians are doing and only Indians know best. That way, there is no point in discussing Kohli's captaincy mistakes as only Indians living in India know best way to handle Kohli.
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: "Indians from India" can decide for themselves what is offensive and what isn't. Its not for "Indians from America" or "Indians with an identity crisis" to tell them what they can and can't find offensive. F*** off with your imperialistic attitude. Maybe "Indians" like you should stop promoting "densensitization" on the subject of killing animals and eating them for food? Now THAT is ugly to see. Hmmm ... what about Indians who grew up in India, experienced/witnessed identification of people by caste (Bomman, Chootran), language (Gulti, Kongati) or physical features (Dumma, Kunta, Chashmish) etc., never really thought much of it and even participated in it growing up, but have different feelings about it now? Are they invalid feelings? For example, if I moved back to India and someone refers to my children (who are on the shorter side) as KuLLa or KuLLi, they, and by extension I, would be offended, while I might not have been offended back when I was growing up. coffee_rules 1
Manny_Pacquiao Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: See, there is difference between calling people you are related to or your friends with such names (which I don’t condone), ?????/ I always respect your opinions, but you've been very, very illogical on this thread. Why do you think its your place to "condone" people calling each other mutually acceptable nicknames? Its none of your business. It's not your place to tell me or my friends/relatives what we can and can't say to each other behind closed doors. I wouldn't have an opinion on what you call your wife, your kids or your friends. It's none of my business, and its between you and your family. Darren sammy is not a stranger, he was a team-mate. Ishant treated him like a friend. If sammy took 'offence', he should have said so at that moment. Normally, "black" people following western social norms are VERY sensitive to 'racism' - they point it out almost instantly. They don't wait THREE years to take offense... Sammy waited 3 years, got honorary pakistani citizenship in the PSL, and is now suddenly acting like a victim. I hope he's getting some good money for this. MechEng 1
beetle Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 34 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: See, there is difference between calling people you are related to or your friends with such names (which I don’t condone), but a different thing to call a stranger or remote acquaintance as Kaluu. That is insensitive and crass. That donkey looking giraffe is stupid if he thinks he is being funny. yes, considering the statute of limitations and current trending topic. Still doesn’t absolve the lambu out of his stupidity. Not justifying anything...just stating facts about 'us' people . We are not known for being fair and non discriminating . Our caste discriminations and the discrimination against girl offsprings itself makes us one of the most unfair people. coffee_rules 1
Manny_Pacquiao Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: Hmmm ... what about Indians who grew up in India, experienced/witnessed identification of people by caste (Bomman, Chootran), language (Gulti, Kongati) or physical features (Dumma, Kunta, Chashmish) etc., never really thought much of it and even participated in it growing up, but have different feelings about it now? Are they invalid feelings? For example, if I moved back to India and someone refers to my children (who are on the shorter side) as KuLLa or KuLLi, they, and by extension I, would be offended, while I might not have been offended back when I was growing up. Caste discrimination is a legitimate issue. As is religious discrimination. But people in India are AWARE of this, and often keep their mouths shut. It's VERY taboo to mention caste in day-to-day life, you NEVER see it in daily interactions between people. India's standards of political correctness (And social norms) accommodate for caste and religious discrimination. Anybody in india could lose their job for off-hand caste or religious-based remarks. Politicization of skin-color, on the other hand, is AN ENTIRELY WESTERN ISSUE. The denial of access to education, housing and employment SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SKIN COLOR, is an ENTIRELY WESTERN PHENOMENON. This does NOT exist in india. India is NOT some settler colony founded on the systematic genocide of indigenous people, like the United states or the rest of the anglosphere. Comments on physical appearance dont carry any greater meaning or significance. Indian history doesn't share that context. I'll repeat what i said earlier: America is not the world. and america's social norms and standards don't apply to other societies. someone and BacktoCricaddict 2
zen Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) One should use “nicknames” for close friends and ideally with those who share cultural commonalities. I will attribute this issue to ignorance with no malicious intent and a lack of proper education/guidance on treating those from a different part of the world/culture. Black is acceptable. Similarly, Gora and Kala are acceptable too in the right context. “Blackie” is not. Similarly “Kalu” is not. Just say sorry to Sammy, explain the context (no malicious intent), and move on. Edited June 10, 2020 by zen
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: Caste discrimination is a legitimate issue. As is religious discrimination. But people in India are AWARE of this, and often keep their mouths shut. It's VERY taboo to mention caste in day-to-day life, you NEVER see it in daily interactions between people. India's standards of political correctness (And social norms) accommodate for caste and religious discrimination. Anybody in india could lose their job for off-hand caste or religious-based remarks. Politicization of skin-color, on the other hand, is AN ENTIRELY WESTERN ISSUE. The denial of access to education, housing and employment SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SKIN COLOR, is an ENTIRELY WESTERN PHENOMENON. This does NOT exist in india. India is NOT some settler colony founded on the systematic genocide of indigenous people, like the United states or the rest of the anglosphere. Comments on physical appearance dont carry any greater meaning or significance. Indian history doesn't share that context. I'll repeat what i said earlier: America is not the world. and america's social norms and standards don't apply to other societies. Good post. Glad to know that official positions exist on religious and caste-based harassment for professional settings. Where I agree: Discrimination based on skin colour in official settings (employment, public facilities) in India is not an issue. I don't think it was an issue even when I was growing up. Where I disagree: (1) Skin colour discrimination is definitely a social issue - how else do you explain matrimonials that insist on mentioning skin colour as a criterion? While it is not anyone's business to interfere in someone's private choice, it is definitely a social ill that must be pointed out. (2) In my interactions with Indian friends and relatives, referencing people derisively by their physical appearance is very prevalent. To me, it is unacceptable. If I lost a leg in an accident, it should not be socially acceptable to refer to me as "langda." Maybe it is a Western value, but definitely one we should consider adopting. Edited June 10, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict
Manny_Pacquiao Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: Where I disagree: (1) Skin colour discrimination is definitely a social issue - how else do you explain matrimonials that insist on mentioning skin colour as a criterion? While it is not anyone's business to interfere in someone's private choice, it is definitely a social ill that must be pointed out. (2) In my interactions with Indian friends and relatives, referencing people derisively by their physical appearance is very prevalent. To me, it is unacceptable. If I lost a leg in an accident, it should not be socially acceptable to refer to me as "langda." Maybe it is a Western value, but definitely one we should consider adopting. I addressed these earlier in the thread, but i'll repeat myself: 1) Matrimonials also insist on mentioning height, weight, size of nose, ears, penis (don't laugh, its true!), hair or lack of it (nobody likes baldness!) and everything else in between. These are superficial traits, but they are greatly important to anyone looking for a life partner. Preference for an 'attractive' partner that happens to be in good physical shape is not only a social norm, but a biologically-driven instinct. Do matrimonial ads mention skin color disproportionately in relation to other physical traits? I don't think they do. I would assume height is a far greater criterion in matrimonial ads than skin color. Women hate short dudes. I DO NOT consider the desire for an 'attractive' and 'physically fit' partner to be a social ill. It could however, be construed as unfairly discriminatory in matters of employment, as shown in this academic study: https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf whose conclusion i agree with. 2) Indian social norms can definitely come across as insensitive to a foreigner, but the morality of these norms should be left to the individuals to decide within the boundaries of their relationship. A close relationship often (and reasonably) makes allowances for atypical forms of behaviour and interaction. In india, most of these 'insensistive' interactions only exist between friends and acquaintances (as in the case of ishant sharma and darren sammy). The terms of those relationships aren't for us to comment on, but as far as i'm aware...referring to somebody's appearance in a disparaging way - whether it be height, weight, skin color, disability - is unacceptable in the workplace and unacceptable in public.
coffee_rules Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: ?????/ I always respect your opinions, but you've been very, very illogical on this thread. Why do you think its your place to "condone" people calling each other mutually acceptable nicknames? Its none of your business. It's not your place to tell me or my friends/relatives what we can and can't say to each other behind closed doors. I wouldn't have an opinion on what you call your wife, your kids or your friends. It's none of my business, and its between you and your family. Darren sammy is not a stranger, he was a team-mate. Ishant treated him like a friend. If sammy took 'offence', he should have said so at that moment. Normally, "black" people following western social norms are VERY sensitive to 'racism' - they point it out almost instantly. They don't wait THREE years to take offense... Sammy waited 3 years, got honorary pakistani citizenship in the PSL, and is now suddenly acting like a victim. I hope he's getting some good money for this. Ok, now, I get your defence. That discrimination based on skin color is a western thing and discrimination based on caste, say like a fair colored Dalit will still get discriminated in India , if not, for others, but social assimilation is nil. A fair Dalit is not accepted as a relative in an upper caste family. That is a social issue of endogamy based caste discrimination and not the western concept of racial discrimination based on skin color. My views on calling someone Kaluu as bad, is from a personal experience, I was nicknamed and discriminated based on my bucked teeth even by my teachers. I was never the ‘monitor’ Or the topper of the class. I know, it is false sense of power now, but for a 12 yr old, it builds confidence. Now, I am doing much better or the same as those ‘monitors’. I was a school topper only in 10th when it was board exams. I took it by the chin and called back with names about their physical traits. My experience tells me it is bad for anybody who goes through being called a Kaluu or a chotu or even a ‘white cockroach’ who was fair skinned. I am leaving out of Sammy’s POV and now convinced he has no genuine grievance, it is all timely. Edited June 10, 2020 by coffee_rules
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: Do matrimonial ads mention skin color disproportionately in relation to other physical traits? I don't think they do. In my experience, yes. Do I have any data? No. But again, is it something to get worked up about? For me, yes. I have seen social discrimination - even with families among siblings - based on skin colour and antiquated notions of skin colour being an indicator of physical well-being. No one is asking for punitive measures - only education the to open people's minds to ideas that dissociate specific skin colours from ability and success, and maybe darker skin will not be construed as less attractive. The Hofstra paper is eye-opening. If attractiveness affects professional success positively, it is obvious that it will affect personal choices unconsciously. We must work to minimize such unconscious biases - social and professional.
MechEng Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Manny_Pacquiao said: ?????/ I always respect your opinions, but you've been very, very illogical on this thread. Why do you think its your place to "condone" people calling each other mutually acceptable nicknames? Its none of your business. It's not your place to tell me or my friends/relatives what we can and can't say to each other behind closed doors. I wouldn't have an opinion on what you call your wife, your kids or your friends. It's none of my business, and its between you and your family. Darren sammy is not a stranger, he was a team-mate. Ishant treated him like a friend. If sammy took 'offence', he should have said so at that moment. Normally, "black" people following western social norms are VERY sensitive to 'racism' - they point it out almost instantly. They don't wait THREE years to take offense... Sammy waited 3 years, got honorary pakistani citizenship in the PSL, and is now suddenly acting like a victim. I hope he's getting some good money for this. This.
MechEng Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said: (1) Skin colour discrimination is definitely a social issue - how else do you explain matrimonials that insist on mentioning skin colour as a criterion? While it is not anyone's business to interfere in someone's private choice, it is definitely a social ill that must be pointed out. (2) In my interactions with Indian friends and relatives, referencing people derisively by their physical appearance is very prevalent. To me, it is unacceptable. If I lost a leg in an accident, it should not be socially acceptable to refer to me as "langda." Maybe it is a Western value, but definitely one we should consider adopting. In case you're unmarried, I would want you to date an ugly looking girl from your perspective. If you refuse the offer, then you're a racist because you discriminated against her for her features.
coffee_rules Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, MechEng said: In case you're unmarried, I would want you to date an ugly looking girl from your perspective. If you refuse the offer, then you're a racist because you discriminated against her for her features. Since, you seem to be unmarried, can you accept a physically fit person with semi-decent features , but on the darker shade of black coffee? It is the personality that should count, but it is not in social norms. Edited June 10, 2020 by coffee_rules
MechEng Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Since, you seem to be unmarried, can you accept a physically fit person with semi-decent features , but on the darker shade of black coffee? It is the personality that should count, but it is not in social norms. It's a no brainer, yes.
coffee_rules Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, MechEng said: This. So, it is the onus on the victim to speak out, rather than the one speaking insensitive stuff. Can the one causing it be educated and sensitized about the Kulcha, history and norms? Edited June 10, 2020 by coffee_rules
coffee_rules Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, MechEng said: It's a no brainer, yes. Then, why do most matrimonial ads seek magically fair skinned brides in India? Edited June 10, 2020 by coffee_rules
MechEng Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 9 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: So, it is the onus on the victim to speak out, rather than the one speaking insensitive stuff. Can the one causing it be educated and sensitized about the Kulcha, history and norms? Speak out is fine, but do it personally with Ishant, Bhuvi and other Deccan Chargers teammates. What was need to throw out dirty laundry in the public? He called them brothers, you can at least trust your brother enough to speak with him privately.
MechEng Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 10 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Then, why do most matrimonial ads seek magically fair skinned brides in India? You cannot make things 100% discrimination free. And Indians are way better than others in this, at least we're not passive aggressive. I've had roommates from England, China and African Americans too, I have fist hand experience of this.
coffee_rules Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 15 minutes ago, MechEng said: Speak out is fine, but do it personally with Ishant, Bhuvi and other Deccan Chargers teammates. What was need to throw out dirty laundry in the public? He called them brothers, you can at least trust your brother enough to speak with him privately. Forget Sammy for once and focus on Ishant. He thinks it is funny and cool to call someone kaluu. It is not acceptable in this day and age.
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 43 minutes ago, MechEng said: Speak out is fine, but do it personally with Ishant, Bhuvi and other Deccan Chargers teammates. What was need to throw out dirty laundry in the public? He called them brothers, you can at least trust your brother enough to speak with him privately. I actually agree with this. Ask them what they meant and let them know it is not acceptable to you instead of the whole big mess. But then again, ICF thread nahin banta, yaar.
Recommended Posts