The Inferiority-Complex of India & Bollywood

[Sudas Paijavana]

I think the mistake you make is that racism has to do with the perception of what is superior in beauty or otherwise.

To compare Whites tanning with people with dark skin bleaching themselves and equate the two as comparatively solid is distasteful. And, as I said before, it is a false dichotomy.

But, I don't know how many times I can repeat this:

This is about Indian society and the colorism found in Indian society. And, Indians in India will relate that the fairer you are, the better off you are as well as a better of a person you are.

Do you know what psychologists found out is the prime reason for racism?

There are many reasons for racism, and I doubt one can be prime while the others cannot - so, to subject one as prime is a matter of psychological opinion, not situational fact.

[Jaskaran Singh]

LMAO!

At least it's not as depressing as this...

[Sudas Paijavana]

At least it's not as bad as this...

Anorexia [and to an extent, bulimia] are scary, scary, scary eating-related illnesses/disorders. Extremely terrifying.

[Jaskaran Singh]

Anorexia [and to an extent, bulimia] are scary, scary, scary eating-related illnesses/disorders. Extremely terrifying.

Yes, most definitely. The Russian woman in the video looks almost like a concentration camp victim; the only difference was that the Holocaust victims dealt with forced starvation, whereas she engaged in self-starvation.

[Avyaydya]

To compare Whites tanning with people with dark skin bleaching themselves and equate the two as comparatively solid is distasteful. And, as I said before, it is a false dichotomy.

But, I don't know how many times I can repeat this:

This is about Indian society and the colorism found in Indian society. And, Indians in India will relate that the fairer you are, the better off you are as well as a better of a person you are.

There are many reasons for racism, and I doubt one can be prime while the others cannot - so, to subject one as prime is a matter of psychological opinion, not situational fact.

Well people will treat you better if you are more: like them, handsome, have more money, are better educated, have a higher position, come from good background, have good connections, are more powerful or dangerous, etc. All very unjust, but a fact of life.

Maybe in the movie business skin tone has relevance but I doubt it plays a role in other branches. I think the things I mentioned above play bigger roles. It may play a bigger role in the mind of people feeling discriminated. People with a history of being discriminated start seeing subtle forms of dicrmination where non is intended. It easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like this

People discriminate. That is natural part of human behavior. We all have our preferences and we discriminate on the bases of them. For me it becomes a problem when unfair discrimination is institutionalized. When a movie industry says: we need paler women because that sells better in present fashion, I do not see that as much of problem. When people are systematically barred in places where skin color could not possibly of any advantage, that is different. This especially important with government and industry. But if someone says: I want a black chauffeur or a white chauffeur. Who cares. You can forbid he says that, but he will still make the same choice.

I was looking up colorism on Wikipedia and I read:
In the Mahabharata, the god Krishna, whose Sanskrit word in its origin language Kṛṣṇa is primarily an adjective for "Black" or "Dark",[13] is sometimes also translated as "all attractive".[14] Whereas the character Arjuna is often depicted as being lighter, and his name means "silvery white".[15][16] The Rigveda referred to two classes of people, the white-skinned Aryans and the black-skinned Dasas. The Aryans were religious and followed the Vedas, performing all the rituals while the Dasas (at a later stage merged into the Shudra class) were to serve them.[17]

What can you say about that?

[Jaskaran Singh]

I was looking up colorism on Wikipedia and I read:
In the Mahabharata, the god Krishna, whose Sanskrit word in its origin language Kṛṣṇa is primarily an adjective for "Black" or "Dark",[13] is sometimes also translated as "all attractive".[14] Whereas the character Arjuna is often depicted as being lighter, and his name means "silvery white".[15][16]

So what? kR^iShNa is still nArAyaNa (the supreme lord, lit. abode if jIva-s) whereas arjuna is merely nara (human).

The Rigveda referred to two classes of people, the white-skinned Aryans and the black-skinned Dasas. The Aryans were religious and followed the Vedas, performing all the rituals while the Dasas (at a later stage merged into the Shudra class) were to serve them.[17]

Bullsh**, dAsa/dasyu refers to an Iranic tribe, they weren't shUdra-s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahae
Also, it's funny how the author of the text cited, Qutub Jehan Kidwai, is a Muslim mleccha. What gives her the right to insult shUdra-s and make up vitriolic lies?

[Avyaydya]

So what? kR^iShNa is still nArAyaNa (the supreme lord, lit. abode if jIva-s) whereas arjuna is merely nara (human).

Bullsh**, dAsa/dasyu refers to an Iranic tribe, they weren't shUdra-s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahae
Also, it's funny how the author of the text cited, Qutub Jehan Kidwai, is a Muslim mleccha. What gives her the right to insult shUdra-s and make up vitriolic lies?

your link says:
Possible confusion

The Dahae should not by default be equated with Vedic Sanskrit's dasa. While the two are etymologically related, there is no directly transferable functional equivalence. In the Vedas, dasa is an ambiguous term that could mean any number of things, including - but not limited to - being a reference to a tribe. Even in this latter case, it only may refer to the same tribe as the Dahae; "man", which is probably the literal meaning of the root of the name, appears in the name of many tribes and individuals. If the Iranian and Indic terms were all - in addition to being etymologically related - also functionally equivalent, it would be enormously difficult to explain how the Avestan tribe that is exalted alongside the Aryans could simultaneously be vilified as the Daxiiu, the Anti-Aryans.[2]

[Jaskaran Singh]

your link says:
Possible confusion

The Dahae should not by default be equated with Vedic Sanskrit's dasa. While the two are etymologically related, there is no directly transferable functional equivalence. In the Vedas, dasa is an ambiguous term that could mean any number of things, including - but not limited to - being a reference to a tribe. Even in this latter case, it only may refer to the same tribe as the Dahae; "man", which is probably the literal meaning of the root of the name, appears in the name of many tribes and individuals. If the Iranian and Indic terms were all - in addition to being etymologically related - also functionally equivalent, it would be enormously difficult to explain how the Avestan tribe that is exalted alongside the Aryans could simultaneously be vilified as the Daxiiu, the Anti-Aryans.[2]

This is assuming that the Vedic Indians were on good terms with the Zoroastrian asura worshipers, which is clearly not the case (as is evident in the dAsharAj~na yuddha, where the Iranic groups such as the parshu-s and paktha-s are viewed as enemies). From the perspective of the Vedic people, the Iranian asura worshippers were the enemies (dasyu apparently means enemy in Vedic), not the shUdra-s, who were themselves Vedic and part of the varNAshrama system (like in the verse padbhyAM shUdro ajAyata...).

[isavasya]

Dear friend Avyaydya

Well people will treat you better if you are more: like them, handsome, have more money, are better educated, have a higher position, come from good background, have good connections, are more powerful or dangerous, etc. All very unjust, but a fact of life.

Absolutely agreed with you. This is a fact of life. Sometimes we feel offended for not being liked but the reality is that other people have also got a list of preference, which they have all the rights to have.

Maybe in the movie business skin tone has relevance but I doubt it plays a role in other branches. I think the things I mentioned above play bigger roles. It may play a bigger role in the mind of people feeling discriminated. People with a history of being discriminated start seeing subtle forms of dicrmination where non is intended. It easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like this

I again agree with you to a large extent. Once you have certain prejudice in mind, you feel like a victim, even if it is not the case. However I will like to provide some new information to you as you might not be aware of Indian scoiety. Yes Skin tone has relevance outside Indian Film industry. I have grown up in north India and I have seen this on some occasions. Particularly during arranged marriages, people seek boys or girls with fairer faces. Also people can pass remarks if one is very dark. I won't say that it is very common but among uneducated or colourists such tendency can exist. I won't say that there is any discrimination based on colour in Indian society but yes there is a tendency to see fairer skin as something respectable or higher class. i think you are right if you didn't saw any such thing in indians living outside India. That is because the indians living outside india are not very fair representative of all India. Mostly educated and rich or talented people emigrate to West.

People discriminate. That is natural part of human behavior. We all have our preferences and we discriminate on the bases of them. For me it becomes a problem when unfair discrimination is institutionalized. When a movie industry says: we need paler women because that sells better in present fashion, I do not see that as much of problem. When people are systematically barred in places where skin color could not possibly of any advantage, that is different. This especially important with government and industry. But if someone says: I want a black chauffeur or a white chauffeur. Who cares. You can forbid he says that, but he will still make the same choice.

Agree with you, we cannot control what other people like.

I was looking up colorism on Wikipedia and I read:
In the Mahabharata, the god Krishna, whose Sanskrit word in its origin language Kṛṣṇa is primarily an adjective for "Black" or "Dark",[13] is sometimes also translated as "all attractive".[14] Whereas the character Arjuna is often depicted as being lighter, and his name means "silvery white".[15][16] The Rigveda referred to two classes of people, the white-skinned Aryans and the black-skinned Dasas. The Aryans were religious and followed the Vedas, performing all the rituals while the Dasas (at a later stage merged into the Shudra class) were to serve them.[17]

What can you say about that?

Thanks for putting the reference of Historical figures. Yes Krishna was dark and so was Rama. Rama's brother Lakshmana was fair. Draupadi was also very dark but considered attractive. Shiva is described as white as burning camphor but not in terms of being attractive or not. I think that these all things show that India has always been multicoloured society. The recent increase in trend of glorifying fairer skin could be feeling of competing with western people. On the whole I would agree with both you and Sahasranama ji and sudas Ji at the same time. You both are saying right things but from different perspective. Yes it doesn’t matters how bollywood or films portray women because quite frankly Women is only seen as commodity by bollywood or any film industry of India. No wonder old 60+ actors like Rajni kant and Kamal Hassan still do films with 20 year old girls. Our film Industry in general doesn’t sees woman more than as a lover of hero. But I think Sudas ji was concerned about looking down upon dark complexioned people in general.

[Avyaydya]

I again agree with you to a large extent. Once you have certain prejudice in mind, you feel like a victim, even if it is not the case. However I will like to provide some new information to you as you might not be aware of Indian scoiety. Yes Skin tone has relevance outside Indian Film industry. I have grown up in north India and I have seen this on some occasions. Particularly during arranged marriages, people seek boys or girls with fairer faces. Also people can pass remarks if one is very dark. I won't say that it is very common but among uneducated or colourists such tendency can exist. I won't say that there is any discrimination based on colour in Indian society but yes there is a tendency to see fairer skin as something respectable or higher class. i think you are right if you didn't saw any such thing in indians living outside India. That is because the indians living outside india are not very fair representative of all India. Mostly educated and rich or talented people emigrate to West.

Hi Isavasya,

I think racism will certainly play a role when it comes to marriages and relations. Research found that the prime reason for individual racism is males wanting to protect females, especially daugthers. When a daughter comes home with someone of somehow different background then this often leads to panic. Parents want their children not only to marry well, but also hope that their children will carry their traditions, their values, their way of life, etc. The son and daughter in law should fit the mental picture they made. And it is certainly true that in some, often higher circles, people can be very narrow-minded. In such cases one should really wonder if one wants to marry in such families, because these people are not pleasant company to begin with. Even if you meet all their criteria your are probaby better off staying away from them.

Agree with you, we cannot control what other people like.

I think liking is individually not the problem. Some people like dark others like fair, some blue eyes, some brown eyes. And luckily their is much more to attraction than the appearance. The mind plays a considerable role too. In my country about half of the black people marry with white people. You can interpret that as positive (they are accepted) but also negative (they not favor their own culture enough). What plays an important role is how open a cultures is, and what expectations parents have and how much pressure they put on their children to meet those expectations.

I did some research why darker models are still underrepresented, generally. What I understand is that marketing forces are at work here. For instance magazines sell less copies with a black model on the cover unless she has a 95% name recognition, like Naomi Cambell, Rihanna, or Beyounce. But in most other cases magazines will go for blue eyed blonds, because they are top sellers. Maybe the differences aren't even that big, but commercial companies are only busy maximizing profits so they will repeat the same choices they think sell best. In the same way that diversity in agricultural crops is disappearing because farmers feel compelled to choose that one crop with biggest return on investment.

There are initiatives to change the situation by giving more black models a chance but it is difficult to change if the paradigm remains the same. Either government could force media producers to be more balanced, or people could start protests labeling movie makers as racist hoping that they will change policies to avoid loss through negative image. Companies are sensitive to media and decision makers need such arguments to sell their decisions. It is sad but that is the state of affairs in our system.

Thanks for putting the reference of Historical figures. Yes Krishna was dark and so was Rama. Rama's brother Lakshmana was fair. Draupadi was also very dark but considered attractive. Shiva is described as white as burning camphor but not in terms of being attractive or not. I think that these all things show that India has always been multicoloured society. The recent increase in trend of glorifying fairer skin could be western influence to some extent. On the whole I would agree with both you and

Sahasranama ji and sudas Ji at the same time. You both are saying right things but from different perspective. Yes it doesn’t matters how bollywood or films portray women because quite frankly Women is only seen as commodity by bollywood or any film industry of India. No wonder old 60+ actors like Rajni kant and Kamal Hassan still do films with 20 year old girls. Our film Industry in general doesn’t sees woman more than as a lover of hero. But I think Sudas ji was concerned about looking down upon dark complexioned people in general.

Preferences of women themselves are a cause here too. Women will often say that men get more attractive when they age and women less. Oder actors easier remain favorites. Overall women are less interested in looks than men, especially when they start to plan families. When women want children the fun guy is often exchanged for something more reliable and if he is older that it is less of a problem. I think that the deeper problem is that now our society is very much profit driven. Profit knows no ethics at all. That is why we saw a trend of ever slimmer women until we saw sick almost hungered to death junky teenagers on the covers of magazines of Calvin Klein. That raised so much protest that they set some boundaries. But it has to come from government or consumers or a better system.