fineleg Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 This may come as a surprise to you' date=' but Indians could make the reddest of rednecks in the deep south look tolerant. That's how racist they are.[/quote'] It does come as a bit of a surprise, and I have to agree with Predz here. It absolutely seems to be like this!!! WOW! Some Indians being so racist and against colored folks inspite of the fact they themselves are belonging to that! And yes as Rohan says, if Jaya and Murali can play, then so can those 2 gals cheerlead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndianRenegade Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 It does come as a bit of a surprise, and I have to agree with Predz here. It absolutely seems to be like this!!! WOW! Some Indians being so racist and against colored folks inspite of the fact they themselves are belonging to that! And yes as Rohan says, if Jaya and Murali can play, then so can those 2 gals cheerlead! The comparison is comical to say the least. Jaya and Murali aren't playing cricket for their looks, nor can Akshay khana and Sharukh play in IPL just because they look good. They play for their cricketing skills. Cheerleaders on the other hand are their to attract the crowd with their external beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamy Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 ^^ Just what I was gonna say. People are confusing the issue here. Should a black person who hasn't even passed high school be given a technical job at NASA when he can't even do elementary math. What would happen if OMG all the other applicants were white!??? :nervous: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamy Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 OK OK OK, I change my stance. One of the girls (saw them on TV in home sweet home! :yay:), the tall one is pretty tapable. The other one is just yucky ugly though. But, maaaan, the tall one is highly doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temujin Khaghan Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Indian 'authorities' saying no to color. The irony of it is so thick! I hope someone sues the heck outta these people who refused to allow them, but then again does suing work in India!? Well, what do u expect in a place with lowlife ad's like the "Fair & Lovely" ads second that. this is so humiliating for everyone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Looks like according to some of you an entire race is excluded from performing a certain job simply because they belong to that race. BTW, that exactly is what is called racism, doesn't matter what the job is, and is a sueable offence atleast in the US. BTW, we are not talking looks, beauty, yada, yada, yada, here. We are talking race. And NO you can't claim an entire race is ugly, no matter who your audience/clientele is, cause that will come back and bite your ass as being racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambit Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Not a surprise considering the fact that one of the owners of one of the teams, King Bhaand aka SRK himself endorses Fair and Handsome cream for men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Not a surprise considering the fact that one of the owners of one of the teams' date=' King Bhaand aka SRK himself endorses Fair and Handsome cream for men. [/quote'] That is absurd and is not relevant to the question on hand. Endorsing a product which changes your appearance is in no way discriminatory against those who lack that appearance. This is like saying someone who comes for ads for Jenny Craig discriminates against fat people or loathes fat people. And one more absurdity. What does one owner's behavior have to do with another owner? Now I know why you guys hate SRK. You keep dreaming up these weird cr@p about him everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 http://ia.rediff.com/cricket/2008/may/23ms.htm Indians in general off the hook according to the girls. They have issues with this specific company Wizcraft and it's employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Looks like according to some of you an entire race is excluded from performing a certain job simply because they belong to that race. BTW, that exactly is what is called racism, doesn't matter what the job is, and is a sueable offence atleast in the US. The girls weren't excluded because they belong to a certain race - they were excluded because they happen to have darker skin and dark skin is not seen as a good titillating prospect in India, a well known fact. I can't recall seeing any dark Indian cheerleaders in the matches either. It's like asking the CIA to send a black person to spy in Russia in the name of racial integration instead of someone who looks like a Russian and has the looks to match the job description. BTW, we are not talking looks, beauty, yada, yada, yada, here. We are talking race. And NO you can't claim an entire race is ugly, no matter who your audience/clientele is, cause that will come back and bite your ass as being racist. We are not talking race but the color of skin and excluding dark skin cheerleaders is perfectly fine if that's what majority of the audience wants. Why shouldn't fat and physically handicapped people be part of the cheerleaders' troupe in that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambit Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 That is absurd and is not relevant to the question on hand. Endorsing a product which changes your appearance is in no way discriminatory against those who lack that appearance. This is like saying someone who comes for ads for Jenny Craig discriminates against fat people or loathes fat people. If the product doesn't aim to discriminate, then why does the ad propound the theory that dark guys are losers and guys with fair skin get all the chicks? Here is the ad: eqtWUezP8VA So basically, when you use the cream, girls find you handsome. :-O If the product doesn't aim to discriminate, why did this happen? Hindustan Lever Limited, one of India's largest manufacturing and marketing conglomerates, discontinued two of its television advertisements for Fair and Lovely Fairness Cold Cream this month, after a year-long campaign led by the All India Democratic Women's Association. Increasing public criticism may be initiating a change in cultural attitudes towards skin whitening in India, a country where the fairness industry accounts for 60 percent of skincare sales, bringing in $140 million a year. The company is the Indian subsidiary of Unilever PLC, based in London. In a memo to India's National Human Rights Commission, Brinda Karat, general secretary of the women's association, calls one of the ads "discriminatory on the basis of the color of skin," and "an affront to a woman's dignity," because it shows fairer women having greater job success based on their sexuality. Fair and Lovely, one of Hindustan Lever's "power brands," is marketed in over 38 countries. Its frequently-aired ads typically show a depressed woman with few prospects gaining a brighter future by attaining a boyfriend or job after becoming markedly fairer (emphasized by several silhouettes of her face lined up dark to light). On its Web site the company calls its product, "the miracle worker," which is "proven to deliver one to three shades of change." http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1308/context/archive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The girls weren't excluded because they belong to a certain race - they were excluded because they happen to have darker skin and dark skin is not seen as a good titillating prospect in India, a well known fact. I can't recall seeing any dark Indian cheerleaders in the matches either. It's like asking the CIA to send a black person to spy in Russia in the name of racial integration instead of someone who looks like a Russian and has the looks to match the job description. We are not talking race but the color of skin and excluding dark skin cheerleaders is perfectly fine if that's what majority of the audience wants. Why shouldn't fat and physically handicapped people be part of the cheerleaders' troupe in that case? As long as you can perform the job as well as anyone else you can't be discriminated against based on not just race, but also based on what anyone can perceive to be a general feature of a particular race (as in skin color of blacks). If everything went by what majority of the audience wants, no black person would have been allowed to perform/play anything/anywhere in the US. Majority isn't always right nor should it be the basis for rejecting people's fundamental right to equality. That's why we have laws, which of course are enacted by a majority, but ones who we hope are enacted by those who have better judgement than the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temujin Khaghan Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Show SRK the money, he will lick dog **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Gambit, you can't claim that just because SRK came in that ad, it means that he discriminates against people who are dark. People come in all kinds of ads for all kinds of reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Show SRK the money' date=' he will lick dog ****[/quote'] I bet you will do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temujin Khaghan Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 As long as you can perform the job as well as anyone else you can't be discriminated against based on not just race, but also based on what anyone can perceive to be a general feature of a particular race (as in skin color of blacks). If everything went by what majority of the audience wants, no black person would have been allowed to perform/play anything/anywhere in the US. Majority isn't always right nor should it be the basis for rejecting people's fundamental right to equality. yoda, u r not entirely right either. coming to the point of equal oppurtunity...u r spot on. everyone deserves it and no one should or can stop talent. but coming to the customer's preference... imagine u went to a lap dance club, would you pay 1000 bucks to a black woman (who may not give u a high) just because u want to give equal oppurtunity? no nah? u would want to watch the woman of your preferred breed (arab, indian, african, german...etc...) unravel and make your day right? Similarly IPL's organisers have every right to say what they want and dont want becoz they are paying for it. Now to tell them to go away properly or to tell the Whizcraft guys that they dont want black dancers would have been the right thing to do. But calling them niggers is a blunder. It is very crude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temujin Khaghan Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I bet you will do the same. sorry, i forgot that you are a professional at that. You go lick all of that pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambit Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Gambit' date=' you can't claim that just because SRK came in that ad, it means that he discriminates against people who are dark. People come in all kinds of ads for all kinds of reasons.[/quote'] I was just trolling regarding SRK. :P But my main point is that if big celebrities like him endorse this ideology of fair>dark, then it becomes acceptable by the masses and people just don't see it as wrong or malicious. And judging by how you were defending the product, it seems you've bought into it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 yoda, u r not entirely right either. coming to the point of equal oppurtunity...u r spot on. everyone deserves it and no one should or can stop talent. but coming to the customer's preference... imagine u went to a lap dance club, would you pay 1000 bucks to a black woman (who may not give u a high) just because u want to give equal oppurtunity? no nah? u would want to watch the woman of your preferred breed (arab, indian, african, german...etc...) unravel and make your day right? Similarly IPL's organisers have every right to say what they want and dont want becoz they are paying for it. Now to tell them to go away properly or to tell the Whizcraft guys that they dont want black dancers would have been the right thing to do. But calling them niggers is a blunder. It is very crude. Customer's preference comes only if it get by the laws of the land. If a customer prefers someone commits a rape or a murder will you allow that in your premise? BTW, there is a big difference between what you do personally in the privacy of your life and what a biz does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 sorry' date=' i forgot that you are a professional at that. You go lick all of that pro.[/quote'] See how easy it is to throw mud at someone? And the guy isn't even here to defend himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts