I know you all love Dot headed Indians But Please stop posting them.

Dr. Truth

보지를 먹어라
BGOL Investor
They hate your black ass.

Fair = Lovely

After four months in India, one thing is clear to me: most Indians (at least Mumbaikers) are obsessed with skin color. Without further ado, ten observations on skin color in India:

1. A fair-skinned person is considered attractive regardless of whether that person has a symmetrical face or a healthy figure. I've noticed that certain people who would not be considered attractive in the United States are considered beautiful here because of their light skin. The flipside is that some who are considered unattractive because of darker skin would be considered attractive in countries outside of India. The equation is simple: in India, light skin equals beauty.

2. In India, you can insult a person by calling her "dark." I've heard these absurd insults several times. For example, an acquaintance was trying to insult another woman by saying, "She's really dark. You know, really dark. She hides it with her creams and she keeps herself light but she is actually really dark." Good one! Zing! You got her good!

3. I've asked Indians to tell me which Hollywood actors and actresses they consider most attractive. Instead of choosing thespians with brown complexions similar to most South Asians' complexions (e.g. Denzil Washington, Halle Berry, Salma Hayek, et al.), they invariably choose light-skinned actors like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Tom Cruise.

4. If one looks at the Bombay Times, Bollywood films, or Indian models, he will notice that the paragon of beauty is that of a light-skinned person with aquiline features. Indian movie stars do not resemble the men and women on the streets of Bombay or other Indian cities. India's movie stars look like light-skinned Iranians, Turks, or Spaniards who speak Hindi.

How many Indians have complexions like Preity Zinta or Hrithik Roshan? How many Indians have green eyes like Aishwarya Rai? Probably less than 0.5% of Indians.

5. The most common quip against Sonia Gandhi is that she is "foreign born and Italian." Yet Indians never criticize the fact that several Bollywood stars are foreign-born or half-Indian, half-white. For example, Yana Gupta, dancer in several Bollywood movies and model for Lakme Cosmetics, is from the Czech Republic. John Abraham, star of Dhoom, is half Iranian and half Malayali. And Katerina Kaif, featured in Sarkar, was born and raised in England and is half British, half Indian.

My point is not to imply that the aforementioned actors are unattractive (I think they are all attractive). My point is that these people are far lighter than the vast majority of Indians, and this says a lot about Indian standards of beauty.

6. Unilever, through its Indian affiliate Hindustan Lever, produces a "power brand" called "Fair and Lovely." Fair and Lovely, according to Unilever Malaysia (this product is sold not only in India but in 38 countries around the globe) is meant to, "unlock the secret of glowing fair skin... [and] unveil your natural radiant fairness in just 6 weeks." (See link). According to a 2003 article in Women's eNews, India's "fairness industry" accounts for 60% of skincare sales and brings in USD $140 million annually.

7. Many Indians go to great lengths to avoid getting tanned and to maintain the lightest skin color possible. They consciously avoid the sun because too much sun can ruin a "fair and lovely" face.

8. On shaadi.com, a website meant for Indians looking arranged marriages, members are supposed to describe their complexion. The choices (from lightest to darkest) range from, "Very Fair–Fair–Wheatish–Wheatish Medium–Wheatish Brown–Dark."

I could not find a single person, man or woman, who described his or herself as "dark." I found people who were very dark-skinned who described themselves as "wheatish brown" or "wheatish medium." (In case you were wondering, "wheatish" is an Indian term that means, well, "like the color of wheat.")

I challenge you to find someone who describes his or herself as "Dark."

9. White foreigners are treated better than African foreigners. I have a cousin who participated in a program run by AIESEC India. AIESEC runs an internship exchange program, sending Indians abroad and sending non-Indians here. My cousin told me that the interns come from all over the world, including Europe and Africa. She spoke with both the European and African students and the two groups reported completely different experiences. The African students said that they felt that they were discriminated against, while the Europeans reported that Indians fawned over them.

10. In India (like much of Latin America), light skin seems to confer a sense of entitlement. Because many Indians fawn over those with less melanin, lighter skinned people learn that it is normal to be stared at and to be deferred to.
http://vsequeira.blogspot.com/2005/07/fair-lovely.html
 
That some good reading.......Some blacks today act in the same manner.....still calling each other nappy headed coons, hell I remember my own aunt telling me that I need to get a girl with "good hair" and fair complexsion so I could have pretty babies... etc.... shes 65 yrs old.

I remember when a light skinned brotha got all the play....light skinned honeys still do. Wasn't it Thurgood Marshall who gave black children two dolls one white and one black and asked which they thought was pretty and they all chose the white one....

India isnt the only country (people) with this hang up..... The white man has planted (brainwashed) his color deep in the minds of non-whites......
 
Last edited:
Uh...(raises hand slowl).....I have these black heads on my neck from over 20 years of shaving.......use bleach creme twice daily...... :D


Fucking with ya, point well taken.
 
its just pictures of indian bitches, they cant reach out and corrupt your children
or anything, get over ya selves.
 
NiggaPlease.jpg
 
co-sign x 1000000.

these musty, stank mufuckas are the most racist people in the world. seriously.

they HATE dark.
they LOVE light.

the white man has TOTALLY fucked-up their heads-making them think white is not only right, but it's the truth.

i'm an engineering manager that has trained at least 12-15 engineers over the years. we recently transferred an indian guy into our group for some cross-training and exposure to deepwater operations.

when he saw that i would be his mentor, he LOUDLY PROTESTED to the VP of engineering... saying that he didn't want to be trained by me but by one of the junior engineers who happened to be white.

the VP asked, "and what is your problem?" his reply... "i can't learn anything from THAT guy because i don't like him." the VP said, "he's trained most of the people here and you're here to do a job not like people. either stay in the new training program or find another job."

he quit the next day.
 
max-dawg said:
co-sign x 1000000.

these musty, stank mufuckas are the most racist people in the world. seriously.

they HATE dark.
they LOVE light.

the white man has TOTALLY fucked-up their heads-making them think white is not only right, but it's the truth.

i'm an engineering manager that has trained at least 12-15 engineers over the years. we recently transferred an indian guy into our group for some cross-training and exposure to deepwater operations.

when he saw that i would be his mentor, he LOUDLY PROTESTED to the VP of engineering... saying that he didn't want to be trained by me but by one of the junior engineers who happened to be white.

the VP asked, "and what is your problem?" his reply... "i can't learn anything from THAT guy because i don't like him." the VP said, "he's trained most of the people here and you're here to do a job not like people. either stay in the new training program or find another job."

he quit the next day.
:smh: As you can see on BGOL it don't matter if a person is a racist that calls you a cave ape coon. As long as they have a vagina niggas will defend them. Just look at the posts above. "Oh well they racists? So what i'd still fuck". Pathetic. Now I see why "Blunt" is such a big part of BGOL. Half these members on here are Crackas.
 
Dr. Truth said:
They hate your black ass.

Fair = Lovely

After four months in India, one thing is clear to me: most Indians (at least Mumbaikers) are obsessed with skin color. Without further ado, ten observations on skin color in India:

1. A fair-skinned person is considered attractive regardless of whether that person has a symmetrical face or a healthy figure. I've noticed that certain people who would not be considered attractive in the United States are considered beautiful here because of their light skin. The flipside is that some who are considered unattractive because of darker skin would be considered attractive in countries outside of India. The equation is simple: in India, light skin equals beauty.

2. In India, you can insult a person by calling her "dark." I've heard these absurd insults several times. For example, an acquaintance was trying to insult another woman by saying, "She's really dark. You know, really dark. She hides it with her creams and she keeps herself light but she is actually really dark." Good one! Zing! You got her good!

3. I've asked Indians to tell me which Hollywood actors and actresses they consider most attractive. Instead of choosing thespians with brown complexions similar to most South Asians' complexions (e.g. Denzil Washington, Halle Berry, Salma Hayek, et al.), they invariably choose light-skinned actors like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Tom Cruise.

4. If one looks at the Bombay Times, Bollywood films, or Indian models, he will notice that the paragon of beauty is that of a light-skinned person with aquiline features. Indian movie stars do not resemble the men and women on the streets of Bombay or other Indian cities. India's movie stars look like light-skinned Iranians, Turks, or Spaniards who speak Hindi.

How many Indians have complexions like Preity Zinta or Hrithik Roshan? How many Indians have green eyes like Aishwarya Rai? Probably less than 0.5% of Indians.

5. The most common quip against Sonia Gandhi is that she is "foreign born and Italian." Yet Indians never criticize the fact that several Bollywood stars are foreign-born or half-Indian, half-white. For example, Yana Gupta, dancer in several Bollywood movies and model for Lakme Cosmetics, is from the Czech Republic. John Abraham, star of Dhoom, is half Iranian and half Malayali. And Katerina Kaif, featured in Sarkar, was born and raised in England and is half British, half Indian.

My point is not to imply that the aforementioned actors are unattractive (I think they are all attractive). My point is that these people are far lighter than the vast majority of Indians, and this says a lot about Indian standards of beauty.

6. Unilever, through its Indian affiliate Hindustan Lever, produces a "power brand" called "Fair and Lovely." Fair and Lovely, according to Unilever Malaysia (this product is sold not only in India but in 38 countries around the globe) is meant to, "unlock the secret of glowing fair skin... [and] unveil your natural radiant fairness in just 6 weeks." (See link). According to a 2003 article in Women's eNews, India's "fairness industry" accounts for 60% of skincare sales and brings in USD $140 million annually.

7. Many Indians go to great lengths to avoid getting tanned and to maintain the lightest skin color possible. They consciously avoid the sun because too much sun can ruin a "fair and lovely" face.

8. On shaadi.com, a website meant for Indians looking arranged marriages, members are supposed to describe their complexion. The choices (from lightest to darkest) range from, "Very Fair–Fair–Wheatish–Wheatish Medium–Wheatish Brown–Dark."

I could not find a single person, man or woman, who described his or herself as "dark." I found people who were very dark-skinned who described themselves as "wheatish brown" or "wheatish medium." (In case you were wondering, "wheatish" is an Indian term that means, well, "like the color of wheat.")

I challenge you to find someone who describes his or herself as "Dark."

9. White foreigners are treated better than African foreigners. I have a cousin who participated in a program run by AIESEC India. AIESEC runs an internship exchange program, sending Indians abroad and sending non-Indians here. My cousin told me that the interns come from all over the world, including Europe and Africa. She spoke with both the European and African students and the two groups reported completely different experiences. The African students said that they felt that they were discriminated against, while the Europeans reported that Indians fawned over them.

10. In India (like much of Latin America), light skin seems to confer a sense of entitlement. Because many Indians fawn over those with less melanin, lighter skinned people learn that it is normal to be stared at and to be deferred to.
http://vsequeira.blogspot.com/2005/07/fair-lovely.html
DAMN !!!!!!!!! You mean they're JUST LIKE BLACK PEOPLE?
 
WhoDat said:
That some good reading.......Some blacks today act in the same manner.....still calling each other nappy headed coons, hell I remember my own aunt telling me that I need to get a girl with "good hair" and fair complexsion so I could have pretty babies... etc.... shes 65 yrs old.

I remember when a light skinned brotha got all the play....light skinned honeys still do. Wasn't it Thurgood Marshall who gave black children two dolls one white and one black and asked which they thought was pretty and they all chose the white one....

India isnt the only country (people) with this hang up..... The white man has planted (brainwashed) his color deep in the minds of non-whites......

You're thinking about Dr. Kenneth Clark.
 
Dr. Truth said:
:smh: As you can see on BGOL it don't matter if a person is a racist that calls you a cave ape coon. As long as they have a vagina niggas will defend them. Just look at the posts above. "Oh well they racists? So what i'd still fuck". Pathetic. Now I see why "Blunt" is such a big part of BGOL. Half these members on here are Crackas.

Indians hate us black americans so much, they should go try to hook up with the Klan and see what's really up.....

Black Americans are more tollerable to other races, than they are towards us. Reguardless of what a person says on this board, they will not pack they're bags and leave the hood because a cracka / indian / itilian etc.. moved in next door...hell he / she may be checking to see if the equity on their home just went up or something......

It's sad that the vast majority of them (indians) feel / preach that way, however, I'm still going to be "WhoDat" and if the indian girl is fine, I'm gonna look......and if one of them male indian fucks up and cross me wrong...........

slap.jpg
 
da_monumental_1 said:
You're thinking about Dr. Kenneth Clark.
Ok cool, thanks for the correction.

The doll experiments
The Clarks' doll experiments grew out of Mamie's master's degree thesis and yielded 3 papers between 1939 and 1940. They found that Black children often preferred to play with white dolls over black; that, asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate, and that they viewed white as good and pretty, but black as bad and ugly.[1] They viewed this as evidence of internalized racism caused by stigmatization.

The Clarks testified as expert witnesses in several school desegregation cases including Briggs v. Elliott, one of the cases that were later combined into the famous Brown v. Board of Education, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court officially overturned racial segregation in public education. According to Woody Klein's Toward Justice and Humanity: The Writings of Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, Scholar of the Brown v. Board of Education Decision, this was the first time the Court ever admitted social science studies as hard evidence. Yet Klein was mistaken with this precedent. Kenneth Clark himself wrote a history called The Social Scientist as an Expert Witness in Civil Rights Litigation, in which he states that Robert Redfield, an anthropologist from the University of Chicago was the first expert witness called to testify as a social scientist in Sweatt v. University of Texas in 1946.[2]

Kenneth Clark advocated several different methods of improving schools in black ghettos, and in 1964 persuaded the Johnson administration to back his ideas with $110 million in federal funding.[3] Teen filmmaker Kiri Davis recreated that study in a 2006 film entitled "A Girl Like Me", and stunningly received the same results as did Dr. Clark and his wife in the late 30's and early 40's.

After Brown v. Board, the findings of the doll studies were more carefully scrutinized and heavily criticized as unfalsifiable. As Garfinkel notes in his Social Science Evidence and the School Segregation Cases, "Clark had no rigorously obtained data whereby he could systematically connect the broad effects of discrimination on personality to the school segregation in these cases."[4] Clark had even found evidence which contradicted this conclusion: 1) He found that more black children in integrated schools preferred and would rather play with the white doll (see table below). He also found that after black children entered segregated schools, they approved more highly of the black dolls.
 
My wife is a Trini Indian, and over there the situation is much different, from India. One thing most of them have black mixture in their family. I stayed over there and was treated with love by her Indian family.
It was the first time, in my life race didn't exist.
If you dig deep you can see how the subtle racism from India still exist, even in Trinidad, but it is nothing like anything felt here with the whites.
For one thing, there is no way I could marry a white girl and stay for three weeks in the same house hold of both her mother, father, cousins and brother, and feel comfortable with sleeping with her in the same bed! :smh:
I say if you got a thing for beautiful Indian woman, stay away from India and go to the Caribbean! :yes:

xyz.jpg
 
I believe this whole structure started back when the Arayans who were a light skinned people invaded the land we know as India, about 800 BC and it was this group the invoked the cast system after intermingling with the inhabitants of the Indus River Valley who were a dark skinned peaceful race this is basically the same as when these white nomads wondered all over the known civilized world. These nomadic tribes were not strong enough to invade Africa until much later in history ...Alexander the Great was next historical figure who lightened a dark people. So the story is ancient one that has it's residule effects even to this very day...The white man conquers , The white man screws your women and makes light skinned babies who are closer to them then they are to the darker people. The question should be why do these people think that light skin is looks better and dark looks bad...perhaps power , beauty or both. The white people is the one group that openly loves themselves without having ot say it , why ! because everyone else who is darker says it for them. So now you know that it was evident even back then long before western slavery long before the fall of the Black Empire............But WHY ?
 
If you people knew about "untouchables" this thread wouldnt be necessary


Many Indians are not racist and many are just like every other group in the world.

ALL ASIAN societies are stuck on complexion. Why single out Indians Doc? Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are the exact same way. Could it be you like the yella slant eyed ones more than the dark skinned Indians?
 
Spoke said:
I believe this whole structure started back when the Arayans who were a light skinned people invaded the land we know as India, about 800 BC and it was this group the invoked the cast system after intermingling with the inhabitants of the Indus River Valley who were a dark skinned peaceful race this is basically the same as when these white nomads wondered all over the known civilized world. These nomadic tribes were not strong enough to invade Africa until much later in history ...Alexander the Great was next historical figure who lightened a dark people. So the story is ancient one that has it's residule effects even to this very day...The white man conquers , The white man screws your women and makes light skinned babies who are closer to them then they are to the darker people. The question should be why do these people think that light skin is looks better and dark looks bad...perhaps power , beauty or both. The white people is the one group that openly loves themselves without having ot say it , why ! because everyone else who is darker says it for them. So now you know that it was evident even back then long before western slavery long before the fall of the Black Empire............But WHY ?

They basically did to India what they did to Rwanda, with the Hutu and Tutsi, and the rest of the world, separation based on racial features the more whiter you are the more privileged they became.
Like Spoke, pointed out, the women, were looked at as the booties of war (funny how we still associate woman with the word) and they were raped and impregnated, as a race weapon!
This insure future dominance and control over the land, for the lighter off springs would be treated better than their darker counterparts!
This artificial duel class citizenship is still prevalent around the world today!
And is the heart of most of the post colonial conflict in Africa and other places around the world.
And like the others pointed out, this same formula is used on us Blacks in this country, and has from day one been used as a effective way of creating a control system on us Blacks, by means of dividing and conquering us.
 
RoadRage said:

They basically did to India what they did to Rwanda, with the Hutu and Tutsi, and the rest of the world, separation based on racial features the more whiter you are the more privileged they became.
Like Spoke, pointed out, the women, were looked at as the booties of war (funny how we still associate woman with the word) and they were raped and impregnated, as a race weapon!
This insure future dominance and control over the land, for the lighter off springs would be treated better than their darker counterparts!
This artificial duel class citizenship is still prevalent around the world today!
And is the heart of most of the post colonial conflict in Africa and other places around the world.
And like the others pointed out, this same formula is used on us Blacks in this country, and has from day one been used as a effective way of creating a control system on us Blacks, by means of dividing and conquering us.
The Caste system was in place in India waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before England knew India existed.
 
Makkonnen said:
The Caste system was in place in India waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before England knew India existed.
I believe this whole structure started back when the Arayans who were a light skinned people invaded the land we know as India, about 800 BC and it was this group the invoked the cast system after intermingling with the inhabitants of the Indus River Valley who were a dark skinned peaceful race this is basically the same as when these white nomads wondered all over the known civilized world. These nomadic tribes were not strong enough to invade Africa until much later in history ...Alexander the Great was next historical figure who lightened a dark people. So the story is ancient one that has it's residule effects even to this very day...The white man conquers , The white man screws your women and makes light skinned babies who are closer to them then they are to the darker people.

It is a system that dated before England but still exist up till today!
 
Makkonnen said:
The Caste system was in place in India waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before England knew India existed.

You're very correct. That guy said the Aryans invaded India around 800 B.C. It was more like 3000 B.C. A lot of people don't know that the Swastika was an ancient Hindu symbol. Or that Ghandi was a racist who discriminated against Africans when he was a lawyer in South Africa.
 
max-dawg said:
co-sign x 1000000.

these musty, stank mufuckas are the most racist people in the world. seriously.

they HATE dark.
they LOVE light.

the white man has TOTALLY fucked-up their heads-making them think white is not only right, but it's the truth.

i'm an engineering manager that has trained at least 12-15 engineers over the years. we recently transferred an indian guy into our group for some cross-training and exposure to deepwater operations.

when he saw that i would be his mentor, he LOUDLY PROTESTED to the VP of engineering... saying that he didn't want to be trained by me but by one of the junior engineers who happened to be white.

the VP asked, "and what is your problem?" his reply... "i can't learn anything from THAT guy because i don't like him." the VP said, "he's trained most of the people here and you're here to do a job not like people. either stay in the new training program or find another job."

he quit the next day.



that's messed up..fuck him....but on the real, dude just created a job opening that can be filled by another brotha. :yes:
 
Bastard Chile said:
You're very correct. That guy said the Aryans invaded India around 800 B.C. It was more like 3000 B.C. A lot of people don't know that the Swastika was an ancient Hindu symbol. Or that Ghandi was a racist who discriminated against Africans when he was a lawyer in South Africa.
yea preciate that correction Chile and you know the untouchables accept that status as the lower class in the belief that they will be reborn into a higher status under the guise of reincarnation.
 
u know alot of them migrated to africa...
and my brothers white girlfriend tells me they discriminate against blacks in nairobi(capital of kenya)

i used to wonder why edi amin made them leave uganda but now i understand
the bad thing is that when they left uganda they didnt go back to india they just went to other african countries!!!

i was shocked to hear black people some places getting discriminated against like that in africa by indians

i live in toronto aswell, i can't say i see much discrimintation here though
 
Here's another thing, the Indians from India can't stand the Indians from the Caribbean and vise versa!
Most Caribbean Indians dislike the Indians from India due to their racism!
 


Ghandhi was a racist and a pediphile.

Gandhi thought black people were subhuman

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Gandhi’s desire for Indians to be segregated from blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city

LAHORE: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1870-1948), the man who inspired great leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, may have harboured racial sentiments against black people if an article on Sulekha.com is to be believed.

The article quotes a series of letters and petitions from Gandhi, linking the black people of Africa to savages and portraying them as little better than animals. Gandhi writes, “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw ******”.

According to the article, part of Gandhi’s attitude stemmed from his belief in the Aryan Invasion Theory, claiming that the superior white race from the Steppes subjugated darker races all across Eurasia. Gandhi refused to accept classification with ‘aboriginal’ looking ‘savages’: “A reference to Hunter’s ‘Indian Empire’, chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the Indo-Germanic stock or, more properly speaking, the Aryan stock.”

He believed that White rule in South Africa – with the help of a reduction in Asiatic immigration was necessary for civilising the blacks with these characteristics: “We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration - into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words ‘gentle compulsion’ in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children.”

Gandhi thus remained a firm believer in white settlement and rule in South Africa. More explicitly, he wrote that the White race deserved to be the dominant race in South Africa: “What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements.”

Along with the dominance of the white race in South Africa, Gandhi also held dear the idea of racial purity: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

Commenting on a petition opposing interactions between the whites and the coloureds, Gandhi wrote: “The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes, more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?”

Gandhi’s desire for the Indians to be segregated from the blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city: “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly.”

It is unclear from the article whether Gandhi later changed his position. However, it does shed some light on the ideas that shaped the mind of one of the most successful political leaders of the 20th century. *

Here is the source. I see why white folk love that man.
(http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24)
 
militantgg said:


Ghandhi was a racist and a pediphile.

Gandhi thought black people were subhuman

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

Gandhi’s desire for Indians to be segregated from blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city

LAHORE: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1870-1948), the man who inspired great leaders like Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, may have harboured racial sentiments against black people if an article on Sulekha.com is to be believed.

The article quotes a series of letters and petitions from Gandhi, linking the black people of Africa to savages and portraying them as little better than animals. Gandhi writes, “A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw ******”.

According to the article, part of Gandhi’s attitude stemmed from his belief in the Aryan Invasion Theory, claiming that the superior white race from the Steppes subjugated darker races all across Eurasia. Gandhi refused to accept classification with ‘aboriginal’ looking ‘savages’: “A reference to Hunter’s ‘Indian Empire’, chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the Indo-Germanic stock or, more properly speaking, the Aryan stock.”

He believed that White rule in South Africa – with the help of a reduction in Asiatic immigration was necessary for civilising the blacks with these characteristics: “We, therefore, have no hesitation in agreeing with the view that in the long run assisted Asiatic immigration - into the Transvaal would be disastrous to the white settlement. People will gradually accommodate themselves to relying upon Asiatic labour, and any White immigration of the special class required in the Transvaal on a large scale will be practically impossible. It would be equally unfair to the natives of the soil. It is all very well to say that they would not work, and that, if the Asiatics were introduced, that would be a stimulus to work; but human nature is the same everywhere, and once Asiatic labour is resorted to, there would not be a sustained effort to induce the natives to work under what would otherwise be, after all, gentle compulsion. There would be then less talk about taxing the natives and so forth. Natives themselves, used as they are to a very simple mode of life, will always be able to command enough wages to meet their wants; and the result will be putting back their progress for an indefinite length of time. We have used the words ‘gentle compulsion’ in the best sense of the term; we mean compulsion of the same kind that a parent exercises over children.”

Gandhi thus remained a firm believer in white settlement and rule in South Africa. More explicitly, he wrote that the White race deserved to be the dominant race in South Africa: “What the British Indians pray for is very little. They ask for no political power. They admit the British race should be the dominant race in South Africa. All they ask for is freedom for those that are now settled and those that may be allowed to come in future to trade, to move about, and to hold landed property without any hindrance save the ordinary legal requirements.”

Along with the dominance of the white race in South Africa, Gandhi also held dear the idea of racial purity: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.”

Commenting on a petition opposing interactions between the whites and the coloureds, Gandhi wrote: “The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes, more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?”

Gandhi’s desire for the Indians to be segregated from the blacks was so strong that he went to Johannesburg in late August of 1904 to protest the placing of blacks in the Indian section of the city: “Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian Location should be chosen for dumping down all the Kaffirs of the town passes my comprehension. ...Of course, under my suggestion, The Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly.”

It is unclear from the article whether Gandhi later changed his position. However, it does shed some light on the ideas that shaped the mind of one of the most successful political leaders of the 20th century. *

Here is the source. I see why white folk love that man.
(http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-3-2005_pg4_24)
Good read!
 
kingblack said:
Not True you!!!!!!! I'm Indian.....They dont Like you!!!!!!! Grow up Its 2007...That Shit is over :smh:

Indian dude called "kingblack"?.

Just like I said "Its prime time for Indian women round here"!.

:cool:
 
Dr. Truth said:
They hate your black ass.

Fair = Lovely

After four months in India, one thing is clear to me: most Indians (at least Mumbaikers) are obsessed with skin color. Without further ado, ten observations on skin color in India:

1. A fair-skinned person is considered attractive regardless of whether that person has a symmetrical face or a healthy figure. I've noticed that certain people who would not be considered attractive in the United States are considered beautiful here because of their light skin. The flipside is that some who are considered unattractive because of darker skin would be considered attractive in countries outside of India. The equation is simple: in India, light skin equals beauty.

2. In India, you can insult a person by calling her "dark." I've heard these absurd insults several times. For example, an acquaintance was trying to insult another woman by saying, "She's really dark. You know, really dark. She hides it with her creams and she keeps herself light but she is actually really dark." Good one! Zing! You got her good!

3. I've asked Indians to tell me which Hollywood actors and actresses they consider most attractive. Instead of choosing thespians with brown complexions similar to most South Asians' complexions (e.g. Denzil Washington, Halle Berry, Salma Hayek, et al.), they invariably choose light-skinned actors like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and Tom Cruise.

4. If one looks at the Bombay Times, Bollywood films, or Indian models, he will notice that the paragon of beauty is that of a light-skinned person with aquiline features. Indian movie stars do not resemble the men and women on the streets of Bombay or other Indian cities. India's movie stars look like light-skinned Iranians, Turks, or Spaniards who speak Hindi.

How many Indians have complexions like Preity Zinta or Hrithik Roshan? How many Indians have green eyes like Aishwarya Rai? Probably less than 0.5% of Indians.

5. The most common quip against Sonia Gandhi is that she is "foreign born and Italian." Yet Indians never criticize the fact that several Bollywood stars are foreign-born or half-Indian, half-white. For example, Yana Gupta, dancer in several Bollywood movies and model for Lakme Cosmetics, is from the Czech Republic. John Abraham, star of Dhoom, is half Iranian and half Malayali. And Katerina Kaif, featured in Sarkar, was born and raised in England and is half British, half Indian.

My point is not to imply that the aforementioned actors are unattractive (I think they are all attractive). My point is that these people are far lighter than the vast majority of Indians, and this says a lot about Indian standards of beauty.

6. Unilever, through its Indian affiliate Hindustan Lever, produces a "power brand" called "Fair and Lovely." Fair and Lovely, according to Unilever Malaysia (this product is sold not only in India but in 38 countries around the globe) is meant to, "unlock the secret of glowing fair skin... [and] unveil your natural radiant fairness in just 6 weeks." (See link). According to a 2003 article in Women's eNews, India's "fairness industry" accounts for 60% of skincare sales and brings in USD $140 million annually.

7. Many Indians go to great lengths to avoid getting tanned and to maintain the lightest skin color possible. They consciously avoid the sun because too much sun can ruin a "fair and lovely" face.

8. On shaadi.com, a website meant for Indians looking arranged marriages, members are supposed to describe their complexion. The choices (from lightest to darkest) range from, "Very Fair–Fair–Wheatish–Wheatish Medium–Wheatish Brown–Dark."

I could not find a single person, man or woman, who described his or herself as "dark." I found people who were very dark-skinned who described themselves as "wheatish brown" or "wheatish medium." (In case you were wondering, "wheatish" is an Indian term that means, well, "like the color of wheat.")

I challenge you to find someone who describes his or herself as "Dark."

9. White foreigners are treated better than African foreigners. I have a cousin who participated in a program run by AIESEC India. AIESEC runs an internship exchange program, sending Indians abroad and sending non-Indians here. My cousin told me that the interns come from all over the world, including Europe and Africa. She spoke with both the European and African students and the two groups reported completely different experiences. The African students said that they felt that they were discriminated against, while the Europeans reported that Indians fawned over them.

10. In India (like much of Latin America), light skin seems to confer a sense of entitlement. Because many Indians fawn over those with less melanin, lighter skinned people learn that it is normal to be stared at and to be deferred to.
http://vsequeira.blogspot.com/2005/07/fair-lovely.html

i'm not gonna disagree with you...but are you so vehemently against the posting of Oriental Asians or whites on this board..last i checked they exhibited similar colour issues and prejudices...
 
Back
Top