Ram Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Those two are my pet peeves. In general Indians are well-respected for work but little for overall personality. I would like to see that change. And that is partly because our society does not view someone who wants to be different , who wants to experiment with his life-style with kind glasses. If you are a maverick, they think you are mad. There is a HUGE difference between these two terms. Take for example the growing number of freelance war journalists that are coming out of the West. In their country, they are respected for what they do. Tell someone in India that you are quitting your day to be go to Iraq and cover the war and see his face go in all obscure angles. Ultimately, most of us tend to do what is acceptable by the usual norms of the society. If the society itself is unforgiving in what it deems ok or not ok, then you really cant blame the individual for not experimenting.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 And that is partly because our society does not view someone who wants to be different , who wants to experiment with his life-style with kind glasses. If you are a maverick, they think you are mad. There is a HUGE difference between these two terms. Take for example the growing number of freelance war journalists that are coming out of the West. In their country, they are respected for what they do. Tell someone in India that you are quitting your day to be go to Iraq and cover the war and see his face go in all obscure angles. Ultimately, most of us tend to do what is acceptable by the usual norms of the society. If the society itself is unforgiving in what it deems ok or not ok, then you really cant blame the individual for experimenting. I am not sure if that's exactly the case Sriram. Take for example your comment abour journalism. Yes Western media does cover war much better than our media does. But thats because they keep landing in war every 2 years anyway. Something or the other is always going on it seems. It is not uncommon to run into a Veteran in USA. Or someone who served in Armed Forces at some time. On the other hand it is extremely rare in India. West can produce such media(journalism, documentary, movies etc) because they have subjects to deal with. I would say you have a point if you deal with History. Western historians go around the world doing their research. I know a couple of British folks who came to Gaya to study Pali and Prakrit scriptures yet I have never seen any Documentary on Indian TV about the subject. Which also adds to my point on that we tend to ignore our culture/history. But if it comes packaged from West we would love it! xxx
Bongosamaj Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 And that is partly because our society does not view someone who wants to be different , who wants to experiment with his life-style with kind glasses. Singularly, the biggest reason why i shall never return to India on a permanent basis. Until the closemindedness in Indian society disappears and its culture becomes mature, instead of just being a rubric of ancient traditions, there is simply no point. As i said before, India is not a very cultured nation. It just has a lot of left-over culture from the ancient times. The two are quite different and vividly so.
Bongosamaj Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Yes Western media does cover war much better than our media does. But thats because they keep landing in war every 2 years anyway. Western media is not just US media. There are western nations that have not seen a war in the last sixty+ years and their media quality still outstrips India's by a country mile. But if it comes packaged from West we would love it! That is largely because the western approach to history is far more scholarly and logically consistent, even when they are pushing a racist agenda or clinging on to false history. Indian historians, atleast of the post-independence era, has the propensity of throwing up a lot of hacks and a lot of crackheads who cannot distinguish between their own opinion and factuality. In short, the reason Indian historians arnt seen very highly, even by many Indians, is because they are very very poor excuses for historians and utterly lacking in quality.
Ram Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 I am not sure if that's exactly the case Sriram. Take for example your comment abour journalism. Yes Western media does cover war much better than our media does. But thats because they keep landing in war every 2 years anyway. Something or the other is always going on it seems. It is not uncommon to run into a Veteran in USA. Or someone who served in Armed Forces at some time. On the other hand it is extremely rare in India. West can produce such media(journalism, documentary, movies etc) because they have subjects to deal with. I would say you have a point if you deal with History. Western historians go around the world doing their research. I know a couple of British folks who came to Gaya to study Pali and Prakrit scriptures yet I have never seen any Documentary on Indian TV about the subject. Which also adds to my point on that we tend to ignore our culture/history. But if it comes packaged from West we would love it! xxx But Lurks, you DONT have to be a citizen of a country that is currently in War to be a freelance War Journalist. And my grouse is just not limited to these guys alone. As you yourself have pointed out with the Historians example. Simply put, quitting your day job and following your exotic passion is something that would almost impossible to do a middle-class Indian household. Imagine the hysteria that would be whipped up if a Project Manager from Infosys suddenly told his family over a quaint weekend that he is " qutting his job and going to be freelance art critic". Singularly, the biggest reason why i shall never return to India on a permanent basis. Until the closemindedness in Indian society disappears and its culture becomes mature, instead of just being a rubric of ancient traditions, there is simply no point. As i said before, India is not a very cultured nation. It just has a lot of left-over culture from the ancient times. The two are quite different and vividly so. Well, the transitions has atleast started, partly thanks to the more access to media and the outside world. Things ARE getting better, but there is still a long way to go.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Western media is not just US media. There are western nations that have not seen a war in the last sixty+ years and their media quality still outstrips India's by a country mile. That is not surprising. It itself media/communications is a Western phenomenon. So I dont find it surprising that BBC is better than AIR but there are ample evidence of AIR producing programmes that are inherently better than BBC too. In short, the reason Indian historians arnt seen very highly, even by many Indians, is because they are very very poor excuses for historians and utterly lacking in quality. Not really. Indian historians are not respected because Indians dont respect a fellow Indian. It is no different than Indian readers not being aware of an Arundhati Roy, Vikram Seth, Piyush Mishra etc but making them the cynosure of their eyes when these folks received acceptance in the West. xxx
Guest dada_rocks Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Indian historians take dictation from west.. I am not sure whether u guys got wind of this issue of our history books calling Bhagat Singh terrorist.. Recently UPSC in ongoing CS mains exam immortalised that depiection by asking a question concerning that adjective.. Bipin chandra at least came clean saying that adjective needs to be revisted ( because that was used by british and we have stuck wiht that, rest of the leftist loony brigade who call themselves historians are still mum over the issue.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 But Lurks, you DONT have to be a citizen of a country that is currently in War to be a freelance War Journalist. And my grouse is just not limited to these guys alone. As you yourself have pointed out with the Historians example. Simply put, quitting your day job and following your exotic passion is something that would almost impossible to do a middle-class Indian household. Imagine the hysteria that would be whipped up if a Project Manager from Infosys suddenly told his family over a quaint weekend that he is " qutting his job and going to be freelance art critic". Didnt Sonu Nigam do exactly that? Leave his music career and spent time with hermits/sages in the Kailash mountains or wherever? A fundamental difference here Sriram which we might have stumbled upon is that for an average Westerner a career is something that he likes/loves. For an average Indian person it is daal-roti. I doubt there are many in India who think of becoming historian(or pretty much any humanity expert really) while you will such people in the West. xxx
Ram Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Didnt Sonu Nigam do exactly that? Leave his music career and spent time with hermits/sages in the Kailash mountains or wherever? A fundamental difference here Sriram which we might have stumbled upon is that for an average Westerner a career is something that he likes/loves. For an average Indian person it is daal-roti. I doubt there are many in India who think of becoming historian(or pretty much any humanity expert really) while you will such people in the West. xxx Yes , precisely. What you had just told there can be summed up in a few words. For the Westerner, Career - Lifestyle For the Average Indian, Career - Sustenance. That is a pity really.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Yes , precisely. What you had just told there can be summed up in a few words. For the Westerner, Career - Lifestyle For the Average Indian, Career - Sustenance. That is a pity really. So essentially while dissecting Stereotypes we have created another :hysterical::hysterical:
bigdhoni7 Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Southies are dark, have thick moustaches and despise the hindi language I'm malu and neither me or my family are "black". in fact, people think i'm mexican and you wouldnt believe the number of times they thought my father was italian. you're right about the thick moustaches one. dont know about the hindi one as both my parents watch those hindi soap operas.
Ram Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 So essentially while dissecting Stereotypes we have created another :hysterical::hysterical: Seems like that.... :haha:
Bongosamaj Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Not really. Indian historians are not respected because Indians dont respect a fellow Indian. Name me ONE Indian historian from Indian institutes that is worth any credibility in the field. It is a categoric fact that Indian historians are nowhere as well trained or logical as their western counterparts are. This is precisely the reason why western version of history (even on topics driven by ulterior motives) gets far more credibility than the Indian version. The field of history in India, simply speaking, is nowhere as robust as it is in the west. We have a long history of producing loonie historians in the post-independence era, who make outlandish claims with zero evidence to support their case. Usually these idiots end up being the gurus of fundamentalist sites like faithfreedom/jihad-watch etc. and gets adopted by hinduvta parties like BJP/SS. Quite simply, from all the historians i've read ( and i've read many), Indian historians are just about the worst historians around today.
Lurker Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Name me ONE Indian historian from Indian institutes that is worth any credibility in the field. It is a categoric fact that Indian historians are nowhere as well trained or logical as their western counterparts are. RC Majumdar comes to mind immediately. By the way whats this obsession with Historians? You are somehow suggesting that if I walked to the next cubicle and asked him about a famous American historian he would rattle 10 names? We have a long history of producing loonie historians in the post-independence era, who make outlandish claims with zero evidence to support their case.Usually these idiots end up being the gurus of fundamentalist sites like faithfreedom/jihad-watch etc. and gets adopted by hinduvta parties like BJP/SS. Quite simply, from all the historians i've read ( and i've read many), Indian historians are just about the worst historians around today. You are speaking in hyperbole. I am sure you have read worst historians but if you think so, feel free. I am not going to contest that Indian historians are world's best. Simply because history is NOT an Indian tradition. We dont follow written history. Our history is passed on from generation to generation. There are pros and cons to it but it is not in our culture and this is what in a way makes us so very flexible. Even the same religion, Hinduism, follows different tradition and tales as you move from state to state. xxx
Bongosamaj Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 By the way whats this obsession with Historians? You mentioned that Indians are more likely to take history packaged-wrapped by the west before their own. I said the reason for that is simple- the field of history SUCKS in India while it is far better developed in the west. We dont follow written history. Our history is passed on from generation to generation. There are pros and cons to it but it is not in our culture and this is what in a way makes us so very flexible. Flexibility in history is often another term for ambiguity and a huge reason for the lack of credibility/knowledge in most of our historical studies. The only reason Indian history exists today is due to the efforts of the western historians- it is their research we owe for our knowledge of the Guptas,Mauryas,Cholas, etc. NOT our desi historians, who have very little credibility in the field. The problem with oral history is that the lack of documentation leads to very amiguous picture and history is often the vehicle of social studies- often you will find western social studies class debating the pros and cons of Napoleonic era social norms with FAR more precision and accuracy than Indians debating the nature of society under the Mughals. Simply because, the documentation of the west is unparalleled- and even a simple treaty signed 200 yrs ago throws remarkable light in the prevailing social norms in certain aspects of that era.
Rajiv Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 Some of the [accurate] stereotypes I have developed for all Indians; - Everyone is a vegetarian - Southies eat nothing but idli and dosas - Southies are dark, have thick moustaches and despise the hindi language - Punjabis and to a lesser extent, all North Indians, are ostentatious loud mouths - Everyone wraps up their remote controls in clingfilm - Everyone keeps newly bought items in their cases for as long as possible, ie; if a little kid has a new bike, he will ride it around with the cardboard crap and plastic still stuck on it until it falls off - just for the sake of showing it off, "yeh mera NAYA bike dikh raha tujhe, chutiyeh !". - Every teen studies 17 hours a day for an exam and then some - Everyone has ridiculous supersitutions. The funniest one i've ever seen was with this dumbass who never clipped his nails. He claimed that nails were a symbol of "good luck" and if you clip them, you are taking away your "good luck". I punched him in the kidneys. - Everyone is hairy and has nasty body odour - Girls' have weird bodies which are out of proportion - Everyone pronounces the letter "w" with a "v", ie; "vhere is your textbook ?", "vhat is that". - All paanwaalas are Biharis - All mithai shop owners (Nathu's, Haldirams, Agarwals' etc) are run by Marwaris etc Pretty much spot on I am not sure but I always thought of bengalis being the smartest, as far as academics go There is lotta stereotyping within caste as well ( I am talking about my own "Sindhis" ) - People stereotype it all the time.
beetle Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 I have met a laid back sardarji in Goa..who didn't want to keep his shop open a little longer....:D
Cricketics Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 The gujjuz one is a spot on gambit.. don't know how i missed this thread.. they can take anyonez money.. they make one work hard and hard and don't pay him... happend with one of my friend who worked @ patel brother.... includes Baniyaz also..
Rajiv Posted November 7, 2007 Posted November 7, 2007 ..all the gujjus and jains I knew were big spenders It boils down to the friend circle, if there is a big group then their spending and attitude is normally similar
Recommended Posts