About the material pasted in Post 63:
I actually found the response of "Indian Royalty" (IR) to "A Disgusted White Girl" (DWG) rather disappointing. Obviously DWG identifies more with the colour of her skin than anything else, but for IR to respond in equal manner is to stoop to the same level.
IR's points about the qualities of Indian women, African-American women who served as slaves, Egyptian queens were all very good. But the thrust of his argument, in spite of making use of these promising points, was a sad let-down.
DWG obviously correlated 'white' skin-colour with other qualities that men of other origins found compatible. Instead of responding by arguing that these other qualities were abundant in people all over the world and therefore were utterly unrelated to one's colour, IR still kept the debate to the wholly irrelevant 'skin-colour'.
Racism is not defeated by adopting racism oneself. Indians (of the Dharmic religions) - and Native Americans, Africans, the Europeans of the Old World, and others - had never identified themselves as better or worse based on something so trivial as skin-colour. Racist views were totally new and unknown to people of these backgrounds. Yes, I agree that Christian imperialists tried to teach us the world as they've seen it, but that doesn't mean we need to accept it or conform to it.
Racism should be destroyed by proving constantly that it is utterly flawed. IR would have done well to point out this underlying flaw in DWG's argument. It would both have corrected her, and perhaps taught her some humility by holding up a mirror in front of her. It might also not have alienated more open-minded readers.
As a counter-argument to IR's "white women are no comparison to Indian/other dark women", I put up a picture of a Greek-Australian woman who follows Hellenismos (ancient ancestral Greek religion). She and her colleagues performed some sacred rituals and celebrations to inaugurate the Sydney Olympics:
<img src='http://jesus-messiah.com/gifs/olympic-flame.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I defy anyone to tell me she does not exude the beauty, intelligence and grace of a Greek Goddess (or at least remind one of Hypatia, the Neo-Platonic mathematician also known for her great beauty).
Why must Indians, Hindus in particular, counter racists using reactive-racism (it's like if Hindus were to counter ChristoIslamist beliefs in monotheist superiority by arguing that "polytheism is superior"). It's another non-argument in the making, and has <i>nothing</i> to do with Dharmic India. The ChristoIslamists have apparently been successful in spreading their racist venom - seeing as how some Indians, like IR, have unlearnt to appreciate all that is good in all peoples of the world.
- Racism believes that one 'race' is better than others, it sees the whole world, and the history thereof, as a war between skin-colours: one bringing Civilised order, the other attempting the destruction of Civilisation. It imagines that disharmony between populations of different skin-colours is inevitable. It's vehemence in irrationally hating or disliking others causes others to become reactive, which then confirms the unfounded racist belief in "inevitable disharmony".
- Reactive-racism - equally flawed - falls for the belief of 'race' and for the racist trap that there need be any disharmony, by arguing that the 'other races' are better.
Neither of these is anywhere near the truth. Racism needs to be confounded, not humoured.
Sunder, I'd much rather read your reply to DWG than that of IR.
I actually found the response of "Indian Royalty" (IR) to "A Disgusted White Girl" (DWG) rather disappointing. Obviously DWG identifies more with the colour of her skin than anything else, but for IR to respond in equal manner is to stoop to the same level.
IR's points about the qualities of Indian women, African-American women who served as slaves, Egyptian queens were all very good. But the thrust of his argument, in spite of making use of these promising points, was a sad let-down.
DWG obviously correlated 'white' skin-colour with other qualities that men of other origins found compatible. Instead of responding by arguing that these other qualities were abundant in people all over the world and therefore were utterly unrelated to one's colour, IR still kept the debate to the wholly irrelevant 'skin-colour'.
Racism is not defeated by adopting racism oneself. Indians (of the Dharmic religions) - and Native Americans, Africans, the Europeans of the Old World, and others - had never identified themselves as better or worse based on something so trivial as skin-colour. Racist views were totally new and unknown to people of these backgrounds. Yes, I agree that Christian imperialists tried to teach us the world as they've seen it, but that doesn't mean we need to accept it or conform to it.
Racism should be destroyed by proving constantly that it is utterly flawed. IR would have done well to point out this underlying flaw in DWG's argument. It would both have corrected her, and perhaps taught her some humility by holding up a mirror in front of her. It might also not have alienated more open-minded readers.
As a counter-argument to IR's "white women are no comparison to Indian/other dark women", I put up a picture of a Greek-Australian woman who follows Hellenismos (ancient ancestral Greek religion). She and her colleagues performed some sacred rituals and celebrations to inaugurate the Sydney Olympics:
<img src='http://jesus-messiah.com/gifs/olympic-flame.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I defy anyone to tell me she does not exude the beauty, intelligence and grace of a Greek Goddess (or at least remind one of Hypatia, the Neo-Platonic mathematician also known for her great beauty).
Why must Indians, Hindus in particular, counter racists using reactive-racism (it's like if Hindus were to counter ChristoIslamist beliefs in monotheist superiority by arguing that "polytheism is superior"). It's another non-argument in the making, and has <i>nothing</i> to do with Dharmic India. The ChristoIslamists have apparently been successful in spreading their racist venom - seeing as how some Indians, like IR, have unlearnt to appreciate all that is good in all peoples of the world.
- Racism believes that one 'race' is better than others, it sees the whole world, and the history thereof, as a war between skin-colours: one bringing Civilised order, the other attempting the destruction of Civilisation. It imagines that disharmony between populations of different skin-colours is inevitable. It's vehemence in irrationally hating or disliking others causes others to become reactive, which then confirms the unfounded racist belief in "inevitable disharmony".
- Reactive-racism - equally flawed - falls for the belief of 'race' and for the racist trap that there need be any disharmony, by arguing that the 'other races' are better.
Neither of these is anywhere near the truth. Racism needs to be confounded, not humoured.
Sunder, I'd much rather read your reply to DWG than that of IR.