Tu_triky wrote:
ho's are everywhere....
And that, ladies and gents, is the lesson of the day. :hehe:
And that, ladies and gents, is the lesson of the day. :hehe:
Bollywood
Started by altec · 17 Nov 2006 · 248 replies
General Discussion
And that, ladies and gents, is the lesson of the day. :hehe:
read the following...your insight is welcome.
Are Hindu Attitudes Towards Race Skin-Deep?
It's high time for Hindus to renounce a holdover of the caste system: the belief that fair skin is better than dark skin.
By Nandini Ramnath
The commercial began innocently enough: A pretty young Indian woman, dressed in a fine sari and jewels, meets a prospective suitor and his family. Then came the punch: He turns her down, and her mother offers her a tube of cream called Fair and Lovely. Flash forward to our new, improved heroine. Thanks, ostensibly, to Fair and Lovely, her skin is now noticeably lighter. She wins her prize-a handsome, also very fair, husband.
So went an ad on Sun TV, a Tamil channel broadcast via satellite from Chennai, merrily spreading its message to thousands of Indian families around the world: Women with fair skin are prettier and more marriageable, and Unilever's cream, a great equalizer, would help anyone get that way.
I watched the ad with growing disgust and complained about it afterwards to my father, who was watching with me. "What?" he asked. "That's just the way Hindus are." He found nothing wrong with it, he said. Everyone in India knew that fair skin was the most beautiful kind.
I shouldn't have been surprised by the commercial's blatant racism, since it has long been abundantly clear to me, and obviously to Unilever as well, that Indians place a premium on fair skin. My cousin's fair complexion earned her the nickname "white crow," and family and friends often praise her solely for that reason. Prospective brides and grooms for other family members were routinely described as being attractive in spite of their dark skin-or worse, unattractive and dark to boot. My mother forever admonishes me to avoid the sun for fear that it will darken, and therefore ruin, my rather average (that is, medium-brown) skin tone.
This reaction to skin color has its roots in the caste system and the degree to which it has insinuated itself into Hindu culture-which is, to a large extent, indistinguishable from Indian culture. The caste system can be attributed in part to a verse from the Rig Veda, an ancient Hindu scripture, which describes the creation of the human race from the primal man, Purusha. From his head sprang the Brahmins, the priestly caste and the highest on the totem pole; from his arms the Kshatriyas, the warrior castes; from his thighs the Vaishyas, or merchant castes; and from his feet the Shudras, the servant or laborer castes. Within each of these castes are thousands of sub-castes, or jatis.
Outside of this system were the people that Gandhi labeled, in a well-intentioned but somewhat patronizing gesture, the Harijans, or people of God. Most Indians know them as Untouchables. The caste system's elaborate hierarchy was also reinforced by texts such as the Laws of Manu, a third- century code of social customs and rituals designed to keep Hindu society strictly segregated by caste, and to ensure that upper castes were protected from the lower castes' "pollution." It contains such pearls of wisdom as "One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudra, to serve meekly...these three castes."
For years Shudras and Untouchables were confined to what were perceived as the lowest, most unclean occupations in Indian society. They worked as household servants, tanned leather hides, tended to graveyards, and swept out public latrines. A consequence of centuries of hard physical labor under the blazing Indian sun is that many Shudras and Untouchables have very dark skin-and are therefore immediately identifiable as low-caste, with all the social stigma that implies. Caste and color have, in this way, become inextricably linked.
Many Indians claim that caste no longer exists in India, and will even complain, like American opponents of affirmative action, that low-caste people get ahead these days just because of unjust quotas, and that the upper castes are victims of reverse discrimination. On paper, the caste system-and discrimination on the basis of caste-was abolished in 1949 by the Constitution of the Republic of India.
Yet all over India, the vestiges of caste are everywhere. After all, it is a 12-year-old boy from an Untouchable family who dusts my aunt's home in Chennai, a Shudra named Mary who serves as my uncle's housemaid, and an Untouchable man who sweeps the floors at the local market. Occupations in South India remain stratified by caste. Nowadays it is possible for a Shudra to become a doctor, but it is impossible to find a Brahmin who works as a bathroom attendant at the airport. Such jobs, it seems, are still reserved for people of the low castes.
Given both the historical context and modern practices, the notion that dark skin is unattractive seems to follow directly from the caste system. Dark skin calls to mind low-caste people, people who lack the education and opportunity to work in air-conditioned offices, shielded from the sun.
Even among the Indian diaspora, who live in racially and ethnically mixed societies, this notion has manifested itself in an insidious way. Many Hindus, accustomed to holding fair skin and all it signifies in higher esteem, continue to view people of certain colors as below them. In the U.S., those people tend to be Hispanic and black, and they are viewed with suspicion and disdain. Comments to the effect that "So-and-so is a decent person, even though he's black" and other openly racist remarks are not uncommon in social settings. Indian-Americans with black partners meet with huge resistance, and in some instances, are ignored, shunned, or worse.
Perhaps it seems a stretch to argue that there is a link between an ancient Hindu occupational hierarchy and the racial attitudes of Indians abroad. In my view, though, it isn't a difficult leap to make. In a culture that not only prizes fair skin and demeans dark skin, but that also associates dark-skinned people with lowly occupations, is it surprising that its adherents might, unconsciously or otherwise, bring those same conceptions with them when they emigrate?
It is high time, more than fifty years after caste was abolished by law, for Hindus in America and elsewhere to critically examine the bases of their long-held preferences for fair skin, and the influence that such notions have on their attitudes towards their neighbors. The explanation "That's just the way Hindus are" is not just unacceptable, it's offensive. The caste system is a shameful blemish on the face of one of the world's most tolerant and compassionate religions. Hindus must not perpetuate its legacy, either at home, through their attitudes towards other Indians, or abroad, with non-Indians. As for me, I'm planning on hitting the beach this summer and enjoying a good tan.
Are Hindu Attitudes Towards Race Skin-Deep?
It's high time for Hindus to renounce a holdover of the caste system: the belief that fair skin is better than dark skin.
By Nandini Ramnath
The commercial began innocently enough: A pretty young Indian woman, dressed in a fine sari and jewels, meets a prospective suitor and his family. Then came the punch: He turns her down, and her mother offers her a tube of cream called Fair and Lovely. Flash forward to our new, improved heroine. Thanks, ostensibly, to Fair and Lovely, her skin is now noticeably lighter. She wins her prize-a handsome, also very fair, husband.
So went an ad on Sun TV, a Tamil channel broadcast via satellite from Chennai, merrily spreading its message to thousands of Indian families around the world: Women with fair skin are prettier and more marriageable, and Unilever's cream, a great equalizer, would help anyone get that way.
I watched the ad with growing disgust and complained about it afterwards to my father, who was watching with me. "What?" he asked. "That's just the way Hindus are." He found nothing wrong with it, he said. Everyone in India knew that fair skin was the most beautiful kind.
I shouldn't have been surprised by the commercial's blatant racism, since it has long been abundantly clear to me, and obviously to Unilever as well, that Indians place a premium on fair skin. My cousin's fair complexion earned her the nickname "white crow," and family and friends often praise her solely for that reason. Prospective brides and grooms for other family members were routinely described as being attractive in spite of their dark skin-or worse, unattractive and dark to boot. My mother forever admonishes me to avoid the sun for fear that it will darken, and therefore ruin, my rather average (that is, medium-brown) skin tone.
This reaction to skin color has its roots in the caste system and the degree to which it has insinuated itself into Hindu culture-which is, to a large extent, indistinguishable from Indian culture. The caste system can be attributed in part to a verse from the Rig Veda, an ancient Hindu scripture, which describes the creation of the human race from the primal man, Purusha. From his head sprang the Brahmins, the priestly caste and the highest on the totem pole; from his arms the Kshatriyas, the warrior castes; from his thighs the Vaishyas, or merchant castes; and from his feet the Shudras, the servant or laborer castes. Within each of these castes are thousands of sub-castes, or jatis.
Outside of this system were the people that Gandhi labeled, in a well-intentioned but somewhat patronizing gesture, the Harijans, or people of God. Most Indians know them as Untouchables. The caste system's elaborate hierarchy was also reinforced by texts such as the Laws of Manu, a third- century code of social customs and rituals designed to keep Hindu society strictly segregated by caste, and to ensure that upper castes were protected from the lower castes' "pollution." It contains such pearls of wisdom as "One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Shudra, to serve meekly...these three castes."
For years Shudras and Untouchables were confined to what were perceived as the lowest, most unclean occupations in Indian society. They worked as household servants, tanned leather hides, tended to graveyards, and swept out public latrines. A consequence of centuries of hard physical labor under the blazing Indian sun is that many Shudras and Untouchables have very dark skin-and are therefore immediately identifiable as low-caste, with all the social stigma that implies. Caste and color have, in this way, become inextricably linked.
Many Indians claim that caste no longer exists in India, and will even complain, like American opponents of affirmative action, that low-caste people get ahead these days just because of unjust quotas, and that the upper castes are victims of reverse discrimination. On paper, the caste system-and discrimination on the basis of caste-was abolished in 1949 by the Constitution of the Republic of India.
Yet all over India, the vestiges of caste are everywhere. After all, it is a 12-year-old boy from an Untouchable family who dusts my aunt's home in Chennai, a Shudra named Mary who serves as my uncle's housemaid, and an Untouchable man who sweeps the floors at the local market. Occupations in South India remain stratified by caste. Nowadays it is possible for a Shudra to become a doctor, but it is impossible to find a Brahmin who works as a bathroom attendant at the airport. Such jobs, it seems, are still reserved for people of the low castes.
Given both the historical context and modern practices, the notion that dark skin is unattractive seems to follow directly from the caste system. Dark skin calls to mind low-caste people, people who lack the education and opportunity to work in air-conditioned offices, shielded from the sun.
Even among the Indian diaspora, who live in racially and ethnically mixed societies, this notion has manifested itself in an insidious way. Many Hindus, accustomed to holding fair skin and all it signifies in higher esteem, continue to view people of certain colors as below them. In the U.S., those people tend to be Hispanic and black, and they are viewed with suspicion and disdain. Comments to the effect that "So-and-so is a decent person, even though he's black" and other openly racist remarks are not uncommon in social settings. Indian-Americans with black partners meet with huge resistance, and in some instances, are ignored, shunned, or worse.
Perhaps it seems a stretch to argue that there is a link between an ancient Hindu occupational hierarchy and the racial attitudes of Indians abroad. In my view, though, it isn't a difficult leap to make. In a culture that not only prizes fair skin and demeans dark skin, but that also associates dark-skinned people with lowly occupations, is it surprising that its adherents might, unconsciously or otherwise, bring those same conceptions with them when they emigrate?
It is high time, more than fifty years after caste was abolished by law, for Hindus in America and elsewhere to critically examine the bases of their long-held preferences for fair skin, and the influence that such notions have on their attitudes towards their neighbors. The explanation "That's just the way Hindus are" is not just unacceptable, it's offensive. The caste system is a shameful blemish on the face of one of the world's most tolerant and compassionate religions. Hindus must not perpetuate its legacy, either at home, through their attitudes towards other Indians, or abroad, with non-Indians. As for me, I'm planning on hitting the beach this summer and enjoying a good tan.
O, and ganmo, to add to my answer to your question. It's sorta like in Japanese dramas, how kissing wasn't very common until recently, and even now, for the most part (but no always), the kissing is heavily glorified.
I think Bollywood is a lil' more advanced than Japan when it comes to the physical aspect of love and affection being portrayed in films/dramas.
Hiya Wynter...
Thanks so much for clarifying things... :victory:
I was curious because I had seen a couple of Ashwarya Rai's films and read some of her interviews and I remember she mentioned something about the lack of kissing in Bollywood films and the reason for it.
On a side note, I highly recommand ya'll watch Born into Brothels.
I had seen Born into the Brothels, but only the first part. It was so sad, especially for the girls. I give kudos to that woman who is working so hard to get these children into schools and off of the streets. I read some reviews and some of the remarks made against this woman were deplorable...some people said that she had no right to make this film because paints a bad picture of the Indian people and the government. But the thing that's being forgotten is how much the children actually benefitted from what she did. I mean, they could be children, even if it was just for a short while...the could go to the beach, laugh, take pictures, even travel...and they could go to school. Things they would have never had the opportunity to do if she had not given it to them.
I really wanted to see the follow-up but never got around to buying the video.
Anyway, I'm totally off-topic...sorry. :sweat:
Tu_triky wrote:read the following...your insight is welcome.
Are Hindu Attitudes Towards Race Skin-Deep?
All points in this article are valid, if a bit exaggerated. I studied the Untouchables in University (so tragic what was done to them!) and there were many people born into this caste who were fair skin.
The point I was previously trying to make was that the caste system isn't soley based on skin colour. The caste system ranked power and created categories for occupations.
A consequence of centuries of hard physical labor under the blazing Indian sun is that many Shudras and Untouchables have very dark skin-and are therefore immediately identifiable as low-caste, with all the social stigma that implies. Caste and color have, in this way, become inextricably linked.
Although skin colour is associated with castes, it wasn't always this way, like I said. My professor was of the highest caste and she was very dark. Her friend was married into the highest caste, and she too is dark.
I think the question about the light beautiful skin colour is so interesting! I mean, it exists everywhere. During the renaissance, you could tell who the labourers were because their skin was darker (tanned from working out in the fields) and so the rich would take special care not to get tanned and glorified the pale skin.
Also, if you look at the black race, racism exists within it between the dark and light. Same as in my own culture. I'm really fair in comparison to others and see the difference in the way I'm treated. I think it's disgusting that something like this can exist, but there will always be racism. And in countries that are of one race, its only natural that racism would exist within a race.
Mind you, I'm off topic.
I still hold that the caste system was not created based on skin colour, or at least there was more to it when it was formed. And I simply wanted to point out, since you comment had only to do with skin colour, that there was more to it then just that. :victory:
ganmo wrote:O, and ganmo, to add to my answer to your question. It's sorta like in Japanese dramas, how kissing wasn't very common until recently, and even now, for the most part (but no always), the kissing is heavily glorified.
I think Bollywood is a lil' more advanced than Japan when it comes to the physical aspect of love and affection being portrayed in films/dramas.
Hiya Wynter...
Thanks so much for clarifying things... :victory:
I was curious because I had seen a couple of Ashwarya Rai's films and read some of her interviews and I remember she mentioned something about the lack of kissing in Bollywood films and the reason for it.
Yup! On a side note, I don't like Rai. She doesn't have much range, but I guess looks can take one far. Plus she's fair-skinned. :beaten:
I had seen Born into the Brothels, but only the first part. It was so sad, especially for the girls. I give kudos to that woman who is working so hard to get these children into schools and off of the streets. I read some reviews and some of the remarks made against this woman were deplorable...some people said that she had no right to make this film because paints a bad picture of the Indian people and the government. But the thing that's being forgotten is how much the children actually benefitted from what she did. I mean, they could be children, even if it was just for a short while...the could go to the beach, laugh, take pictures, even travel...and they could go to school. Things they would have never had the opportunity to do if she had not given it to them.
I really wanted to see the follow-up but never got around to buying the video.
Anyway, I'm totally off-topic...sorry. :sweat:
People always get defensive the second their flaws are shown in such a blunt fashion. I think what the photographer attempted to do was beautiful.
She tried to enroll them into boarding schools to "save" them, but the end resutls were dire. I was in tears when I saw just how it was for this innocent children to escape the horrors of their future. :pout:
Wynter wrote:....
very informative.....an education for me.
as far as Bollywood is concerned...never watched a film from India....would they show a romantic scene b/n a light skinned person and a dark skinned person or is that unlikely?
Yup! On a side note, I don't like Rai. She doesn't have much range, but I guess looks can take one far. Plus she's fair-
skinned. :beaten:
Yes...she's very exotic looking and stands out quite a bit, doesn't she? Looks over talent, I guess.
People always get defensive the second their flaws are shown in such a blunt fashion. I think what the photographer attempted to do was beautiful.
Exactly...I totally agree with you. She cared more about these children than those who dared to critise her.
She tried to enroll them into boarding schools to "save" them, but the end resutls were dire. I was in tears when I saw just how it was for this innocent children to escape the horrors of their future.
The last update I read, some of them were doing quite well and others had to quit because of their parents/guardians. I read that one boy was even given the opportunity to go to school in the U.S. for a short time. So it didn't turn out all that bad. I cried when I read about the children (I think one or two of the girls) who were forced to return to the streets. So sad... :puppydog:
On topic a bit...my husband says that India produces more films than any other country, even the U.S. :victory:
Tu_triky wrote:
very informative.....an education for me.
as far as Bollywood is concerned...never watched a film from India....would they show a romantic scene b/n a light skinned person and a dark skinned person or is that unlikely?
In the past the majority of the celebs were light skinned with a few rare exceptions (and these exceptions were always the better actors, imo).
Now-a-days it doesn't matter. For example, the most famous actor today, Shah Rukh, is quite dark in comparison to others.
India is also ver aware of this colour issue, and they even have movies that portray the conflict, and you see love stories budding between people with different colour skin. Still, to be honest, the majority of the female actresses are still fair, but I mean Rani, who is prolly the biggest it-girl right now, is also dark. So even tho both the popular stars are minorities in terms of skin tones, they are both the most famous.
ganmo wrote:The last update I read, some of them were doing quite well and others had to quit because of their parents/guardians. I read that one boy was even given the opportunity to go to school in the U.S. for a short time. So it didn't turn out all that bad. I cried when I read about the children (I think one or two of the girls) who were forced to return to the streets. So sad... :puppydog:
From all the girls who went to school, all but one remained. Two were pulled out by their guardians and one left of her own accord. From the boys, only that one boy (the very talented artist) was successful. So outta the eight or so people, only two were "saved". It's tragic and totally broke my heart. Specially that older girl with no parents. Her aunt forced her to work in the line because she would bring in money. :puppydog:
On topic a bit...my husband says that India produces more films than any other country, even the U.S. :victory:
Verra true! Because they are CHEAP to make. Now, o'course, they have what I like call the "hollywood" movement, we're they're introducing a lot of stunts and special effects into their films.
Wynter wrote:
In the past the majority of the celebs were light skinned with a few rare exceptions (and these exceptions were always the better actors, imo).
Now-a-days it doesn't matter. For example, the most famous actor today, Shah Rukh, is quite dark in comparison to others.
India is also ver aware of this colour issue, and they even have movies that portray the conflict, and you see love stories budding between people with different colour skin. Still, to be honest, the majority of the female actresses are still fair, but I mean Rani, who is prolly the biggest it-girl right now, is also dark. So even tho both the popular stars are minorities in terms of skin tones, they are both the most famous.
i say slather the light skinned ones with eel sauce and make it all good.
Tu_triky wrote:
i say slather the light skinned ones with eel sauce and make it all good.
I wouldn't mind tasting a few South Asians celebs lathered in eel sauce. Mmmmm... John Abraham... :drooling:
Wynter wrote:
I wouldn't mind tasting a few South Asians celebs lathered in eel sauce. Mmmmm... John Abraham... :drooling:
yeah even his name sounds S. Asian.....
Tu_triky wrote:
yeah even his name sounds S. Asian.....
LOL! South Asians can be Christians too, ya know. My grandma's name is Mary, and grandpa's name is Alfred. Grandpa is really dark, and grandma (RIP) is really fair.
:P
Wynter wrote:
LOL! South Asians can be Christians too, ya know. My grandma's name is Mary, and grandpa's name is Alfred. Grandpa is really dark, and grandma (RIP) is really fair.
:P
i know i had an Indian friend in college in named Reuben Wilson....the girls thought he was dark and lovely....like the hair dye.
Tu_triky wrote:
i know i had an Indian friend in college in named Reuben Wilson....the girls thought he was dark and lovely....like the hair dye.
My brother's name is Samuel and his so fair he's always mistaken as being white. And he's a total westerner. My sister is dark, and I'm in the middle. We all look adopted.
I like green men myself.
Wynter wrote:
My brother's name is Samuel and his so fair he's always mistaken as being white. And he's a total westerner. My sister is dark, and I'm in the middle. We all look adopted.
I like green men myself.
all girls do, bollywood. green = cash.
Tu_triky wrote:
all girls do, bollywood. green = cash.
:hehe: :hehe:
I know this is totally off topic, but... wait, I'll ask in Got Something to Say thread...
>>zoom<<
Wynter wrote:
:hehe: :hehe:
I know this is totally off topic, but... wait, I'll ask in Got Something to Say thread...
>>zoom<<
i once saw a bollywood-esque remake of the michael jackson video thriller...it was so good it made me swoon.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pzJo7zVXQr0
Tu_triky wrote:
i once saw a bollywood-esque remake of the michael jackson video thriller...it was so good it made me swoon.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pzJo7zVXQr0
LOL! I remember you showing this before. SO WRONG! :bleh: Ol' school bollywood was just whack.
Wynter wrote:
LOL! I remember you showing this before. SO WRONG! :bleh: Ol' school bollywood was just whack.
whadda mean ol' school...they filmed that last year...i bet you love homeboy's red cobra leather skin pants...
Replying needs an account. Registration opens soon.