Via our news tab, mutineer Rupa alerts us to this week’s SECOND sepia fugging on the popular (and brutal) Go Fug Yourself blog. While I don’t necessarily agree with Heather’s review of pretty Parminder, I think the girls at GFY are usually spot-on with their wit and crit.
Rupa’s tip was about Mindy Kaling, someone whom I will admit I don’t know much about because she’s on NBC’s lesser version of The Office, a show I have never been able to sit through for an entire episode. No matter. The genius of GFY is its focus on the outfit. I don’t need to be an Office-fan to grasp THAT. Or not grasp it, as is the case here…what is up with those boots?
From the knees up, she looks adorable, all set for a divine NBC-Universal booze cruise of clenched-teeth joy, where every toast to their wonderful fall schedule comes with paranoia from Jeff Zucker that people will figure out they’ve swapped the costly champagne and top-shelf liquor with well booze and sparkling cider.
But her shoes are pure “local theater revival of Xanadu.” They look like she stapled wallpaper scraps to her ankles.
They actually look like chausses to me, but vatewer. Like expert Fugger Heather, I dig everything else she’s got going on, too. Her skin is glow-y, little black dresses are always money and the coral-red beads look great on her. But the boots…oy.
A few days ago, Brimful sent us the other GFY-related news item about Parminder Nagra getting fugged. In a delightful bit of connectivity, if you search SM for Mindy Kaling, Brimful’s comment about her here is one of two results you’ll find. If you can spin some sort of conspiracy theory out of that and the fact that both fuggees are on NBC shows, bring it. 😉
On to Parminder, specifically what GFY had to say about HER threads, since Fugger Heather and I already agree on the following:
Parminder Nagra is gorgeous.
Word. Where’s the “but”?
Which is why I wish heartily that she hadn’t gone and upholstered herself…Her body looks tense, as if she’s uncomfortable or uneasy in this confusing crosshatched fabric-store nightmare. I suspect it’s because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition — you have to maintain constant vigilence when you’re dressed as something resembling a Comfy Chair, because you risk being dragged unexpectedly into their brand of comfortable torture. From there it’s a short slide down to poking some old woman with the soft cushions and wondering, “How did this become my life?”
Owie. I don’t think she looks UPHOLSTERED, but I might be a little biased; I love green, plaid and wrap-dresses, so put Parminder Nagra in all of the above and I’m rather content. I know, it’s not her best look but if this is what “fugly” means…
fug•ly (adj.)
frightfully ugly; of or pertaining to something beyond the boundaries of normal unattractiveness. Ex: “That ‘Kabbalists Do It Better’ trucker hat is fugly.”
…in that picture, she’s not fugly to me. 🙂 Your thoughts?
:+:
On a slightly related note, I was just looking at this post when I realized that neither of these accomplished actresses are the color of milky tea. They don’t have jewel-colored eyes, fair skin or blonde/auburn hair/highlights. In other words, they look like plain old desi me. That thought made me happy, after a lifetime of hearing “You’re so pretty for a dark girl,” while growing up in Northern California. I could tell you stories about my personal experiences with the entire “fairness-is-a-virtue” mindset which would dislodge your jaw, but I’ll save it for later.
After approximately three seconds of basking in the glow of these two, I realized that if we swapped the “H” for a “B”, they’d never make it in THAT version of the industry. Hollywood will use an actress which looks like me, Bollywood…won’t.
Superbrown/Razib:
so you guys have never seen 100% Indians (mom,dad) that are “white?” I have. I don’t mean fair skinned, I mean they look white. In Houston, and in India I have seen 2 brothers in Jullandhar that is my cousin’s cousin (from the other side). The older brother is white (not fair, but white) with brown hair and the younger is white with blondish brown hair. In fact, when we went to a wedding in India, I thought they were foreigners invited to the wedding. But then my cousin introduced me and i was like WTF they can’t even speak proper english, just Punjabi/Hindi…. mind you i was born and raised in America so i’ve been surrounded by white people all my life, and can even usually tell between southern, eastern, and western european whites.
i think Hritik Roshan would be classified as fair. I think some Indians, like designer Rohit Bal would be classified as white. Here’s the guys pictures: http://www.rohitbal.com/downloadrohitphoto.htm. You guys don’t think he looks Russian?
I completely agree with the comment about advertising and movies showing the ideal. The man or woman on the street does not look anything like the pale models. On the same note, anyone ever wonder why south indian movie actresses are so chunky? A friend of mine has a theory that since most women from the south are incredibly slim, fat is desirable there.
DT2004:
Yes, white. My nana (maternal grandfather), two mamas (maternal uncles) and one mausi (maternal aunt) are white. Two of my nana’s sisters were white. My nana’s buas (paternal aunts) were all white. I have seen white Gujaratis, Maharashtrians, TAMILS (brahmins), Bengalis, and countless Punjabis. All 100% Indian. I was once in Punjab during Hola Mohalla. Hundreds of thousands of people out on the roads. As a conservative estimate I’d say 5-10% of the people looked white, with brown hair and blue or green eyes.
Amitabh,
To say that 5-10% of the population in Punjab has blue or green eyes is such an exaggeration. I say that because I lived there for a good 10 years. I would have to go with 1%. But, if you are talking about light skin, it’s probably more than 10%. I am Punjabi, with a tan skin complexion, but usually am thought to be Hispanic. My father and mother are light-skinned, but grandfather could pass for black, if it weren’t for the turban.
I thought someone clarified what is implied by “white” and how it is identified in an earlier post. Anyways, my “white” boyfriend here is getting a kick out of this discussion and claims he’s learning more about desiness and desi attitudes from SM than being with me. Kudos!
Anyhow, what’s the point of determining which group of Indians is whiter than the rest? Please reiterate if I missed it, or direct me to the appropriate comments. Thanks.
BushHater:
Please don’t let your boyfriend read this stuff!
Amitabh
Why not have the whitey lurkers out there read this stuff? Are you maybe worried that they’ll get a glimpse into just how much we all wish we were white?
Take note of the commenters on this thread who gratuitously point out how fair they are, how their relatives look white, how their ethnic community is whiter than the others, how dark desi women must necessarily be jealous of fair ones, how fair skinned people are treated better by westerners than their darker compatriots etc. etc. It is beyond shameful. If it’s not, why not let it all hang out?
Let’s let whites and others get a chuckle out of our collective inferiority complex – maybe then we’ll realize how sick it is.
and
This is embarassing. I feel like telling non-indians not to take what you might read about “desi attitudes” here literally.
On the other topic, there are people who are actually “white” and when desis spend a lot of time thinking we are “white” because our skin is relatively lighter – or not – its equally embarrasing. And it gives people the wrong impression that we’d rather be some other ethnicity than our own. Its such a tricky thing because color status in India is real, and sometimes really bad. Maybe it is pre-Brit, but it doesn’t make it much different in its effects.
Lastly, please do not use dating someone of another ethnicity as a taunt other people, thats just unpleasent
not to mention, colorism is a form of discrimination and its a bit uncomfortable to see this not taken into account as we describe our various complexions.
finally, its also uncomfortable to hear the n-word used to describe us. to me that is not creating solidarity in a positive way, or even a realistic way. My community refers to itself as Sheres – Lions, and thats the way we’ll stay. Lions are golden in color by the way.
(that last thing was a bit melodramatic and ott i admit, but i wanted to insert some pride for desis into the discussion)
I’m afraid the issue is more complex than our collective inferiority because of how dark some of us are. Honestly, I love my tan skin, and I have light-skinned desi friends who would love to be darker. What does that say? And my whitey boyfriend would probably love it if I were a shade darker than I already am.
I find these proclamations demeaning to at least one party:If you are dark, you must feel inferior and if light, you are somehow the oppressor. It’s ridiculous. Let’s come up with a new politics and stop insisting that it’s all about skin color. I am sure many of you will laugh at my idealism and think of me as someone denying my roots and racism etc. etc.
People who are racist, petty, and base beauty on skin color will always be there. Why should we invest our time in identifying skin tones/shades amongst ourselves, if we don’t care for it at all, and don’t care to judge people based on it at all ? Let’s stop caring, please. Let’s look at people as people, as individuals. Let’s stop basing our politics on identifying groups such as “gujaratis”, “punjabis”, or even “Indians” for that matter, and making grand proclamations about the light and dark skinned ones in each group. I am tan, my parents are light, grandfather black. So, what? My father thinks dark skinned south Indian women are stunning. Come on man, I’d like to think there are enough “individuals” who can emerge out of this collective nonsense of black, brown and white.
I think people in India care much less about regionality than diasporadics do.
I personally am down to caring about being Punjabi only because I like Punjabi culture, history and religion. And as a Sikh male, I’ve been taught since I was small to try to be ready to defend my community with honor if the need arises. Other than that, I try not to participate in divisions of people, while trying to remain aware of divisions that already exist and need changing.
I agree with you that deligitimizing differences based on color or ethnicity has many advantages, and is ironically something that Indians in India seem to often do on the daily
You are right in a white racialist sense, they would hate all visible minorities + jews. But I am talking about what average families talk about when beyond closed doors. An average jewish person in canada would have a far more negative view of arabs than of chinese people.
“Lastly, please do not use dating someone of another ethnicity as a taunt other people, thats just unpleasent”
why do you assume automatically she meant as a taunt? very revealing of your own psychology..
anyhow this fugly stuff is SUCH nonsense. SP had it pat up in post no. 16. pretty sick thing the whole fugly site, it would only really be fair if the people behind the site were willing to let the rest of us see what they look like. ha. such a lot of jealousy – what i don’t get is if there is any need of this jealousy, why the heck put the celebs up on the bl**dy pedestal in the first place? it doesn’t make any sense really..
Good point Sahej.
btw, I am a Sikh female, and very much in love with aspects of the Punjabi Culture. I love the religion as well, but am an agnostic. I see what you are saying about being taught to defend your community if need be. This is so true for the post-9/11 environment, where as we all know, the “light skinned” Sikh community have been targets of such hatred and ignorance.
However, it is my awareness of this politics at the community level, that makes me demand a politics free of ethnic, national, gender and racial boundaries for all. I refuse to think of and make statements about whites, blacks and Indians as a whole.
It came across as a taunt to me, maybe she can clarify.
But, interesting observation
I agree, current times warrant increased awareness, but Sikhs have been in precarious positions since the founding of the community. I think this history goes a long way in forming some core elements of our culture. I grew up for example in the 80’s.
Also I think in the US, generationally, the generation younger than me has a different view on ethnicity and color, and I think their responses to their society reflect that. I’m assuming you might be in that group. I respect your all views and the way you go about things, and you have the support of the old desis. I thought at one point we’d create that kind of society but I think, we’re just on the other side of a sea change in attitudes on color and ethnicity.
however, institutional discrimination is likely to still be a problem to tackle even if ethnicity/race itself becomes less stigmatized
Sahej,
Are you referring to the comment I made about ‘whiteys’? Most white people don’t appear to find this derogatory, in fact a few of my white friends use it regularly to refer to themselves. If BushHater or her bf are offended, I’m truly sorry.
Dharma Queen,
no I wasn’t, but I don’t even want what I said to be taken as some kind of strong registration of offense. One needs to be careful what one writes, but also one needs lee-way regarding ones statements.
Anyway, no worries on my end Dharma Queen
No, actually they care a lot more, go to a Shiv Sena convention in Mumbai and find out. But it’s more like they all hate Pakistan more than they hate each other. This is why you generally have FOBs coming on Sepia Mutiny and demanding that it abandon it’s pan-South Asian viewpoint in favour of a narrow Indian only view.
Some ABCs I think get dissilusioned with the pan-desi culture (example Bollywood), but don’t quite fit into mainstream western culture. So they end up emphasizing regional or religious aspects of their identity. But the majority of ABCs aren’t like that, but rather just become more assimilated into western society.
BushHater,
You’re not an idealist, you’re just NORMAL. The number of obsessive-compulsive-colorists on this site, who hijack discussions raving about how fair so-and-so is, and who seem to be overwhelmingly second-gen, continually depress me…the ones who are the most depressing are those who make sanctimonious disclaimers about not caring about race or colour, and then proceed to detail how fair all their family members are, how they’ve slept with practically-white Indian women, blah, blah, blah.
I disagree on a number of points here. For one thing, going to a Shiv Sena convention is to purposefully seek out people interested in regional difference. On a day to day level, migration in India is changing regional differences, and in North India for sure among younger people, there is less emphasis on regional differences than previously.
Also, pan-desi culture is not exactly the same thing as Punjabi culture, so participating in regional difference is not really a choice, it would mean actively forgetting some aspect of one’s home culture, to value the broader desi culture and one’s regional culture does not mean one is not comfortable or disallusioned with a broader culture. Punjabi culture is not normative pan-desi culture. why are both not valid?
DharmaQueen,
I call him “whitey” myself at times and even the “oppressor”, but that’s out of sarcasm…we laugh about it. So no worries.
Sahej,
I hear you on the precarious situations Sikhs have encountered, historically speaking. Believe me, I grew up “pissed off” at everything the Sikhs went through in India in my teenage years. And it still riles me up sometimes, especially given that many of the wrongs were never undone or addressed. We were just expected to outgrow it with the lapse of time.
This is precisely the experience that loosened my faith in allegiances to ideas such as nation, race, ethnicity…it’s a facade. But, we constantly hear about it in America, given the great multi-cultural agenda.
This discussion is in danger of veering a little too far off-topic (again)…..
Clarification of physical appearances for the benefit of those who may be misinformed about such matters, or simply may have had insufficient direct “real life” experience of people from such backgrounds, is okay and a good way to rectify any erroneous perceptions. This was the basis of my tangential friendly chat with Razib, and I would hope that similar comments by subsequent participants were also driven by the same motivations.
I do, however, agree that we should not get carried away in proclamations about how “white” or fair-skinned we (or people from our families/communities) may be. Not because I think such statements are necessarily driven by egotism or a desire to declare to the world that “we’re white”, but because, beyond a certain point, people from other desi groups and, especially, visitors from non-desi backgrounds will misunderstand the basis and intention of such conversations.
For the record — in case there were any misunderstandings — I regard making offensive statements about very light-skinned South Asian women regarding their skin colour as being as bad as making insulting comments about dark women. I may have used my own life-experience to annotate why I reacted badly to the offhand statements about lighter women (and I agree with Amitabh that there is a tangible streak of jealousy or neurosis that is evident in some parts of this thread, which the commenters concerned may not be aware of or exhibiting deliberately, but there’s definitely a negative undertone present), but — more importantly than that — the basic principle of human respect, courtesy and sensitivity is the major driver here. We all know how terribly, and unjustifiably, dark Indians are often treated by their relatives and compatriots in terms of disparagement about their supposed lack of attractiveness, all the crap they have to deal with if they get entangled in the arranged marriage process, etc etc. In fact, I also know very dark desis — both male and female — socially and in terms of relatives — who are absolutely fantastic people and who mean the world to me, yet it’s heartbreaking to see the bukwaas they are exposed to despite everything they have going for them. So I can certainly empathise with that, more than people here on SM may realise.
With regards to my main thoughts:
Firstly, Razib’s basic premise in post #95 that it’s irrational for desis to be prejudiced towards other darker desis when both parties are in a white-majority part of the world is correct. People may have certain aesthetic preferences in romantic matters or subjective standards of beauty/attractiveness, and in my view that’s fine, but not if it means that people who do not match these preferences are mistreated. One is under no obligation to find someone attractive if the latter does not match certain things one likes (within reason and feasibility, of course), but one certainly does have an obligation to be nice to such people irrespective of whether or not you think they’re hot.
I’m going to take a lateral view here: The basic problem within desi culture isn’t that lighter-skinned people are viewed as attractive. The problem is that, culturally-speaking (slightly separating this from individual personal “tastes”), people of darker hues are not viewed as also attractive within the society as a whole and the overarching cultural framework. If this stance was “neutral” then it wouldn’t be such a major issue, but it’s destructive when the darker skin is specifically viewed as unattractive (ie. not “neutral”) and even possibly repulsive.
Hence all the problems.
So what’s the solution ? Well, there’s little that can be done by desis in the diaspora about this matter back in the subcontinent. There are over a billion people there and the influence of the fraction of desis living overseas is relatively inconsequential, at least in this matter. It’s something they need to sort out internally, via social change and/or the not-insubstantial influence of the media & entertainment industry. One thing I will note, however, is that although lighter-skinned Indians, especially women, are very obviously promoted in Bollywood and television serials, these days there is a marked increase in darker models who appear as VJs, in music videos, and in elite fashion shows. The impact of the latter may therefore be one way to change attitudes over there (we can hope).
But what about desis living out here in the West ? Well, one step is to slightly disengage from the influence of the Indian media and the associated societal attitudes. We are all separated from the subcontinent by thousands of miles and also have the luxury of objectivity and, to some extent, freedom of action in this matter. The British (South) Asian population is already well-established with a rapidly developing, and increasingly high-profile, 2nd-gen culture; although the dynamics are slightly different here due to the different composition of the desi population in the UK compared to the US, as mentioned previously, one can also hope that in the near future, there will also be a consolidation and development of 2nd-generation “American Desi” culture which is similarly going to be semi-independant of whatever may be going on back in the subcontinent. So you can carve out your own future, reject the irrational and prejudicial attitudes which may have been inherited from the older generation, and promote a different ethos regarding perceptions of beauty and the (or lack) placed on skin colour. I would also hope that greater confidence will develop as the profile of desis in the mainstream American media and public increases; I know that you guys often get a very bad deal indeed at the hands of the white American population and the US media — certainly compared to the UK — but it will help if a more assertive stance is taken by desis there and, especially, if you are more proactive about increasing your own cultural profile there, along with dealing effectively with any negative representations of you in the mainstream media (in this case, regarding the attractiveness of South Asians).
I guess one factor here in the UK, apart from the “Latin”/”Italian” (to use Razib’s analogy) appearance of a disproportionate number of us, is the fact that the majority desi communities (Punjabis and Pakistanis) are, frankly-speaking, a little more macho and “warlike” than many other South Asians, which has resulted in a more proactive and assertive stance being taken on how we are represented and our reaction to how we are treated (in the media and in “real life”), along with our perceived level of attractiveness and our overall behaviour in general (for example, it’s been fashionable since around the early 90s for many male South Asians here to disproportionately wear black attire, not because of any “goth” affiliation, but because it has more aggressive overtones and is seen as more of a “Mafia/Gangster” thing. It also looks very good when combined with olive skin and black hair.) You guys in America need to figure out what approach is most appropriate in your own society and environment, of course 😉 If the Hispanics can succeed in making the image of both men and women from that background to be deemed “sexy” in mainstream American culture — a precedent set by the black population, especially via their impact on the music and entertainment industry — then South Asians can certainly do the same.
In the meantime, I think that the best approach with regards to internal attitudes within the American desi population is the following: One can raise oneself up without simultaneously dragging other people down. Meaning, it is better to promote the attractiveness of darker desi women without simultaneously denigrating lighter-skinned desi women and the fact that the latter are viewed as attractive in South Asian culture; one does not have to do the latter in order to successfully achieve the former, and in fact this is certainly a more ethical way to approach the matter. Bring everyone up to the same level, in the same way that (objectively-speaking) blonde hair is not necessarily more attractive than brunette hair (or blue eyes compared to brown eyes) — it’s a matter of one’s personal choice and personal aesthetics.
I hear you, but then part of me thinks, what about those who make a sacrifice for ideas like that? How does one both protect a community and deny that the basis by which the community formulates itself? I don’t know if that is clear, let me know if it isn’t.
This topic appears to be really sensitive for some reason. there is no point in debating this. There are white Indians, black Indians, yellow and brown. Anyone who disagrees is not aware of the subject. 10% of Punjabi’s being white is too high of a percentage from what I’ve seen, and I’ve been to many different cities of Punjab. Maybe 5% or less. With regards to looking Southern European, like Greek or Italian, then easily 15-20% of Punjabis can be classified as this. But if you’re talking Anglo, then like I said 5% or less.
The fact is there is and has always been a disproportionate amount of fair skinned, as well as Punjabi actors in bollywood.
My nephew thinks he is white. He knows he is of Indian descent, but he calls the Gujurati children in his class as “Indians” and he is “American.” If you were to see the difference in complexion between him and his father’s side it is very large contrasts. They are Gujuratis.
The thing is, there is a difference between “pale” and truly fair. “pale” skinned Indians are usually females who avoid the sun at all costs. But once they do get a hint of sun, they turn brown. This is in stark contrast to many truly fair Indians that I know who tan Golden, like whites. Most “pale” Gujurati/South Indian girls will turn as dark as anyone if you put them out in the sun. A lot of Punjabi’s wont, they’ll get a tan with red or golden skin color.
Complexion is a very sensitive subject for some Indians, but being in denial that racial differences do not exist between regions is not going to change anything. Better to be factual then not.
There’s no basis for saying differences of complexion are related to any kind of “racial difference”. Unless you’re saying four people can be in the same family, and be of four different races.
Btw,
I’m listening to Surinder Kaur right now and all these differences melt away when you hear her voice. Mera koobsurat punjab
i’m outtie
here is a map for blond hair and blue eyes in europe (independent variables). if 5-10% of indians in a crowd have blue eyes, recessivity of eye color would imply that 20-30% of the genes in the population are blue eyed (square the recessive trait frequency to get its expression).
yes, there are some white indians i guess (that fasion designer is fair in the american context, roshan looks like an italian or latin american movie star, so he would be “sultry,” not fair). but there are probably 100 to 1000 X indian people who look like africans with straight hair.
here my “bullet” points
1) in my family color matters a lot in how people are treated and perceived. i have 6 uncles, ranging from light brown to dark brown, and my late maternal grandfather was explicitly mean to his “ugly black son,” while nicer to his “light” sons (in terms of persona, i will add that it adds to the ugliness that my “black” uncle is probably the kindest, most open-hearted of my uncles. this is not to say that this is how dark people naturally are, but the juxtposition of character and appearence has made me extremely sensitive to this topic). myself, i was raised in the USA. i am a typical brown person, “shamla” in bengali speak. my mother is fair and my father is dark. growing up in all white upstate new york these distinctions within the family were totally irrelevant. we were all brown. there was a two other brown kidz in my elementary school. one kid’s family was from kerala, while the other kid was from pakistan. we exhibited the range in color, from light brown to dark brown, but i know for a fact that all of us were confused for the other repeatedly (and this is in light of the fact that some of the italian american kids had complexions which were closer to the pakistani kid than the kid from kerala!). so there is the day-to-day interaction that many of us have where we are simply “brown,” straight up, no distinctions needed. this is not to say that there weren’t salient distinctions between the 3 of us, the pakistani kid and myself had more in common because we socialized now and then because our families knew each other.
2) i have a brother who is very young. when we went to bangladesh a few years ago we were sitting outside an aunt’s beauty parlor, and my brother looked at paintings of women on the wall, and innocently asked me, “how come the paintings of women are white? do bangladeshis want to be white?” he was asking an innocent question, and i didn’t know what to say so i shrugged. my brother is probably more “desi” than i am because he actualized socializes with more brown kidz in the neighborhood, there are more brown people in the USA now than there were 25 years ago. but there is still an enormous chasm in cultural outlooks here when it comes to color perception. nevertheless, my brother is embedded within a community where color still matters. my mother still contrasts his lighter skin to that of my sister. i know this hurts my sister’s feelings, but i also know that my brother does not take any joy, or even notice the “praise,” he is the “brown” kid, so small variations in color in family are irrelevant to him. so this goes back to my overall point: in the context of american brownz i think color prejudice as we practiced it in the old country is the net highly negative, they hurt the feelings of individuals while they don’t really do much for someone who has to still live in the “real world” as a non-white individual. psychological tests show that individuals will not take risks if the outcome is balanced, that is, they risk losing as much as they could gain, you have to double what you might gain compared to what you lose to induce individuals to “play the game.” so my maxim is that it is important not to hurt feelings unless the gain is enormous, so it infuriates me that some people import in color prejudice into a social circumstance where the gain is so trivial.
3) jai’s point that snide and offensive comments toward light skinned people are not necessarlity helpful, nor do they uplift the situation, is on point. on the other hand, i think sometimes certain people do need a reality check about what their social situation in the new context is. myself, i don’t hang out with brown people except cyberstyle. i am not part of the “brown” community, and i don’t plan on inculcating my children with their “heritage” because i have more personal affinity with western and even chinese cultural traditions than what i perceive to be an overly religious cultural heritage (my own brown sympathies would be with the carvaka, though with a little more neo-confucian ethical outlook). but, it is a fact of my existence that people will perceive me as “indian” for my whole life, so i have a stake in the emergent american cultural matrix. i think that there is a realistic shot at ameliorating traditional south asian color prejudice in the new context. of course, one might say that this will be replaced by an ideology of white skin emulation. but i don’t think so, and the reason is this: most dark skinned south asians have “light” relatives, they can still feel that there was a genetically potentiality of them being light if the die had been rolled differently. on the other hand, almost no brown people have relatives who are blonde fair, so there is no tenuous emotional attachment to this ideal when it is outside of the ken of any realization. note that the “fair” people in bollywood are still rather swarthy in northern european contexts. yes, they look unlike most brown people, they are not totally detached from brownness in a fashion that nicole kidman would be.
4) re: the genetics. i know about skin color genetics, and a lot of data is coming out on this topic. it seems like 4-5 genes control color, and because of within family sampling process if you have diversity of expression on these genes your children will exhibit variation. africans exhibit almost no diversity, they are generally “all expressed,” while northern europeans tend to be “loss of function.” populations in the middle tend to exhibit some “on” and some “off” genes, so they are in between in color. if you want to simplify it you can model it as a binomial sampling process. you can read about a simple model here. see the sampling process within family.
5) this topic maybe beaten to death, but it is not trivial, american brown culture is new and be shaped now. the “orthodoxies” and “norms” established early on can have a long term impact. the socioeconomic assocation of light skin with high status in america among browns does not exist, yet. we can make a better future, at least in this small manner.
My point was that the brown diasporia cares less about regional differences than browns in desiland. Desiland is becoming relatively more tolerant with internal migrations, but that doesn’t change that it’s still intolerant in relation to the diasporia.
Can you explain this point more simply? I’m confused at how an entire CONTINENT of people can exhibit almost no genetic diversity. Is this just in regards to skin color? Because even then the various skin tones of black people suggests otherwise…
Can you explain this point more simply? I’m confused at how an entire CONTINENT of people can exhibit almost no genetic diversity. Is this just in regards to skin color? Because even then the various skin tones of black people suggests otherwise…
there are about 4-5 spots in the genome which seem to control variation in skin color across populations. we call these “loci” (generic term for spoit in the genome). we know the number because of pedigree analysis and ascertaining the amount of variance within populations which are mixed black & white. within the last 5 years a lot of more the molecular genetic details are coming out. the primary locus that was known of until recently is MC1R. in dark skinned people this locus is “constrained,” which means that it exists in only one form. in light skinned people it is “turned off” quite often into a whole variety of flavors (this implies a relaxation of selection). in east asians there seem to be selection for one particular variant which is causing light skin (europeans have about 30 common light skin causing variants). europeans seem to be selected for loss of function (causing light skin) on a locus called SLC, which is constrained in africans and east asians.
ok, that was a lot of junk to throw your way, bug google it. or read about skin color on my blog.
but here is the abstract model which you need to keep in mind.
say you have someone with “black skin.” this is what their genetic code mine look like:
Gene 1 On & On Gene 2 On & On Gene 3 On & On Gene 4 On & On
humans are diploid, we carry two copies of any gene. in the individual above all copies are “On,” they lead to the production of melanin. assuming that each “On” results in 1 unit of melanin. you have a total of 8 units produced by this person.
here is a european:
Gene 1 Off & Off Gene 2 Off & Off Gene 3 Off & Off Gene 4 Off & Off
all copies are “Off,” so they produce 0 from each copy at each locus (remember, there are 4 genes, two copies each). what if they mated? all their children would look like this:
Gene 1 Off & On Gene 2 Off & On Gene 3 Off & On Gene 4 Off & On
on each gene you get one copy from one parent. the african parent would give you an “On,” the European parent would give you an “Off.” the offspring would be “brown” in skin, producing 4 units of melanin (On = 1 unit).
ok, so now let’s assum that this “brown” individual marries another brown individual. what will happen? well, 50% of their genes are on, and 50% off, alternating at each locus. same for their mate, so the expectation is that the children will be brown…but, there is going to be sampling variance, since you could get this from a brown X brown mating like above
Gene 1 Off & Off Gene 2 Off & Off Gene 3 Off & Off Gene 4 Off & Off
or
Gene 1 On & On Gene 2 On & On Gene 3 On & On Gene 4 On & On
in other words, both parents can contribute only one flavor on each locus, producing a “white” or a “black” child. this unlikely, but, it shows that the most likely result is a child deviated from the parental median because there is going to be variance.
now, you can also have situations like this:
Gene 1 Off & Off Gene 2 Off & Off Gene 3 On & On Gene 4 On & On
this individual is also brown. but, if they marry another person with the same genotype, all their children will be brown as well. why? because there is a 100% chance of giving only one flavor to their offspring, all their offspring will inherit either an on or off copy.
why is this relevant to brown people? because we are a mixed population (punjabis to tamils, bengalis to keralans). very dark skinned individuals (black skin, as some brown people have) exhibit what is termed a “consensus sequence” on skin color, that is, selection has reshaped humans skin we lost our fur 2 million years ago with dark skin (chimps have pink skin when shaved). africans tend to exhibit a consensus sequence, as melanesians and some south indian populations do. this does not mean they are related or anything, it just means that selection keeps them dark for reasons of fitness. for south asians as a whole our variation means that we’ll always see interfamilial variation.
african americans show variation because they are about 20% white, and sampling variance works on them as well.
DT2004,
I am Punjabi and no, I do not tan like white people, and have a sister who is quite fair, and gets brown after about an hour in the sun. Infact, when I returned from a trip to Jamaica, I looked “black”, not golden. Anyway, what is your point? or for that matter anyone else’s who keep claiming so and so percentage is white, brown, green??? Would you like a medal for being “oppressed” and dark? And your nephew thinking he is white has to do with things other than skin color, as I am sure you are aware,
I’ve made my point earlier and I don’t think anything new has come up here, besides the regurgitation of the same old, so and so is fair, pale, brown, black… Increasingly, I think there are many on this thread who prolly don’t like their own skin color. Well, stop blaming all the light-skinned people and grow to love yourself and you’ll see that most people don’t care either, your aunties and uncles not included.
And in any case, you don’t have the statistics to show how you came up with these percentages of fair etc. etc. Until that time, please stop with the proclamations.
Peace out!
PS: Sahej dude,
You’ve gotta check out Aman Hayer’s new track. It’s awesome!
just to be a little more explit, in the case where two brown people with genotypes:
Gene 1 Off & On Gene 2 Off & On Gene 3 Off & On Gene 4 Off & On
marry, the expectation would be that the child also exhibit 4 units of melanin expression. but, the standard deviation would be 1.4 units, that is, you would expect that the average child would be shifted over 1.4 units, though there are going to be children with lower and higher melanic units in a large enough number of siblings too….
In principle, I agree that Indians consider lighter skins more attractive than darker skins. But then I don’t know what to make of my own experience. I am several shades ligher than my sister, and she’s a whole lot prettier. I’ve never met anybody who did not think so. People point out helpfully that my sister is very attractive whereas I have a bland face, and most of them don’t fail to mention that I look pale and sickly. I’m very tired of hearing “you need to get out more in the sun”. If I weren’t lazy as well as kind-hearted, I would retort “just as fairness creams can’t lighten the color of your skin, no amount of strong sunlight can make me look “healthy.”
will do!
I’m seeing now why people feel like the good ol’ color debates are useless, because they just go round and round… and end up nowhere.
That being said, what’s wrong with bringing up how fair one is or the fair people in one’s family? It’s only boasting if you perceive that there’s something to boast about! I could easily bring up how many relatives I have who are dark and frizzy-haired enough to pass for Ethiopan…
I’ve always thought one part of people discussing their especially fair relatives is an almost subconcious counter to how the British colonists considered themselves superior because of their color. And the irony is that with their supposed racial superiority, if that means light skin, eyes and hair, there are Indians that have of those same traits — and that such racial generalizations are bakwaas. So people kind of point out the surprise not only at such anomalies but also that hey, Indians are not a buch of darkies. (Not all Indians or people can discuss these issues with the same subtelty those versed in genetics can.)
Anyway, color was, is and will a touchy issue… hopefully one of these days when this is regurgitated again it can finally go to the next level. It doesn’t seem like most of us are ready yet to debate this (or caste as another highly touchy topic) in a level-headed and detached manner, or with a common understanding …
in a level-headed and detached manner
how could anyone discuss this in a detached manner? i can discuss the genetics in a detached manner, but in terms of how people are treated and valued, that is by its nature emotionally fraught. we aren’t vulcans.
p.s. my reading suggests that the mughals introduced many of the detailed color terms into the subcontinent to distinguish them from the native “black” muslims.
BushHater and Accidental Enlightenment:
There may some on the thread who attack light-skinned people because they’re unhappy with their skin colour, but if so, there are at least as many light-skinned people on the thread unhealthily preoccupied with their fairness. Contrast the number of posts going on about the poster’s fairness, fairness of their ethnic group and family with the number of posts that go on about being dark. Apparently dark-skinned posters don’t feel the same compulsion to talk about their skin colour. Of course there’s boasting involved, given our cultural norms. In the desi context, to start describing how fair you and your relatives you are is akin to describing how much money you have. It’s in bad taste.
And in case this is put down to sour grapes, I’m an in-betweenie. No one in my family’s ever given me grief for being dark; no one’s ever given me a medal for being fair. So there.
In the desi context, to start describing how fair you and your relatives you are is akin to describing how much money you have. It’s in bad taste.
this is true.
but two relevant points:
a) if $$$ is proportional to fairness, indian americans should be amongst the poorest of ethnicities in the USA. they’re not.
b) within brown americans themselves i am willing to bet there is a mild negative correlation between wealth and light skin, because of the lower educational status of pakistanis vis-a-vis indian americans, and the high SES of certain southern groups (there are far fewer bangladeshis than pakistanis in the USA so they don’t ‘balance’ the ledger).
the socio-cultural superstructure which bax these prejudices is deep & powerful, but american reality contradicts the reasons for their initial generation.
(i think some of the same can be applied to britain, the mass of low SES punjabis from mirpur outweights the smaller lower of low SES bangladeshis, so you probably have a mild negative light skin/SES correlation due to the inordinately high SES profile of the east african brown communities who are of medium complexion)
Pashtun, Hindko
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/archive/index.php/t-202326.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindko
I don’t know if this is true but were some Indian actors thought to be descended from pashtuns, actually descended from Hindko speakers? doubt most of u know about hindko speakers but maybe razib does. also are there any pakistanis amongst the common posters. sri lankans?
I don’t know if this is true but were some Indian actors thought to be descended from pashtuns, actually descended from Hindko speakers? doubt most of u know about hindko speakers but maybe razib does. also are there any pakistanis amongst the common posters. sri lankans?
what i know
1) a survey from about 10 years ago did a sampling of genetic material from muslims in uttar pradesh. they ascertained that about 5% of the ancestry was likely of recent “west eurasian” input. this was higher than the 0% in neighboring hindu groups (i say recent because obviousl there have been movements of people from the west into south asia for a long time).
2) most muslims like to pretend that all their ancestors were from outside south asia. some of these i can believe. i have known of individuals from uttar pradesh who are muslim and look genuinely middle eastern or turkic. unlike other brown people who look this way their whole family looks this way. that is, they aren’t simply a part of the background physical variation, some muslims in south asia whose origins are persian, turkic or (more rarely) arab have preserved their identity through endogamy (sound familar?).
3) nevertheless, many wealthy and powerful muslims in south asia claim ashraf (foreign) status & extraction no matter their real origin. so saying one is “pashtun” is not always a sign that one is descended from one of the ethnically pashtun tribes, but rather a title. i suspect that some of the individuals who are “pashtun” or what not are simply trading on a title that was conferred upon their family during the mughal period. see the history of the title khan.
4) but following #1 & #2, there is variation in the extent of this 5%, and some of the north indian muslims are more “foreign” than the typical south asian.
5) finally, i suspect backprojecting ethnic categories beyond 200 years is very difficult. this is true in much of the world, even europe. the strictly demarcated ethnic boundaries we have today are somewhat artificial, and definitely a “bad it” in places with complex interweavings of religion, class, language and race, like south asia. i will offer the hazara as a case in point, shia muslims who are generally mongoloid in appearance (their mongol ancestry has recently been confirmed by genetic testing, it seems 50% of hazara male lineages can be traced back to the family of genghis khan himself) who speak a dialect of persian.
Aiyooo! This topic is getting so lame. Dang I dount care if a woman is black, brown or white as long as she has sexy feet, ankles and toes. Mmmmm.
Razib,
A belated response to your earlier question about the appearance of Pakistanis, at least with regards to some of the women.
A British Pakistani guy posted the following link on the Pickled Politics blog a while ago in order to defuse some of the usual heated Indian/Pakistani political arguments — I believe someone there appropriately coined the term “Hot Women Diplomacy 😉 ” — so take a look at this. It’s basically lots of photos of famous Pakistani models and actresses.
(And don’t do “that thing with your hands” while browsing through it. You know what I’m talking about…..)
Enjoy 😉
That’s very interesting, I didn’t know that. Are there any relevant online links you can provide ?
DT2004,
I certainly think a fair degree of paranoia, neurosis and hysteria is in effect. Some people are falling into the typical desi trap of automatically assuming that anytime someone says something which can be construed as being a positive statement about themselves, they are boasting, even if the comments were made purely in a neutral academic context and to redress what may be erroneous preconceptions on the part of others (physical appearance of certain groups being the relevant issue here). Not everyone is necessarily driven by egotistical motivations, regardless of the endemic nature of such traits within desi society, so it’s better for people not to excessively extrapolate innocent statements and make negative assumptions about some kind of underlying negative agenda. The unnecessary overreaction is actually a greater reflection of insecurity on the part of the offended party. Cognitive dissonance again.
(I’m not even remotely referring to Razib here, I should clarify).
I wonder how long it will take for someone to start going on about “power dynamics” and (wait for it) “self-hatred”. The latter in particular is the equivalent of that online cliche claiming that when someone mentions the Nazis, you know the argument’s terminated. Maybe someone should invent a term for this: “The Sepia Rule”, anyone ?
PS: I think Razib just really likes saying the word “brown”. He must hold the world record for repeatedly using the word on any given thread far more than anyone else on this blog 😉 {Joking}
Jai, I have enjoyed your comments for as long as you’ve made them. You are nearly always articulate, sensitive and even-handed. I am experiencing a bit of “dissonance” myself now, because this is the first time I have disagreed with you. There was plenty of boasting, my friend. What you consider mere statements made “purely in a neutral academic context” were actually insidious, elitist assertions of status and genetic fortune.
The first time you mentioned, quite appropriately, that we shouldn’t criticize fair woman as if we have immunity to do so or that similar statements about darker women would be unthinkable, I must say, I was impressed with your tone and purpose. However, since that necessary point of order, this thread has depressingly polarized and much to my dismay you are on one end and I am on the other, the allegedly “jealous” end.
This discussion is so telling:
Group A makes assertions which range from relevant and reasonable to relevant and inflammatory.
Group B counters with gasoline and the canard which equalizes the situations of the dark and fair.
Group A’s more eloquent members try and disabuse their opponents of this misapprehension (was it Saurav who made that bitterly hilarious comment about the lack of demand for “dark and lovely”-cream?) and for their efforts they are marginalized with that potent weapon which all evil middle-school girls wield: “You’re just jealous”.
Game over. Saying “I’m not jealous” in no way convinces anyone of that sentiment. In fact, the only way to counter such a garbage allegation is with indifference, but that is not an appropriate strategy when a critical and much-needed conversation about such a divisive issue is being held. It’s unfortunate that the side which has argued valiantly (some of Razib’s points were especially excellent) is now covered in mud, slung by those who have to counter attempts at reason with accusations of emotion.
Jai,
I see. So when one notices a pattern of fair-skinned desi posters droning on ad infinitum on thread after thread about fairness (a pattern not paralleled among medium and dark complexioned posters), one is motivated by paranoia, hysteria, neurosis, and one’s own insecurity? Hmm. Who’s making wild extrapolations based on innocent observations here?
Communis Rixatrix,
First of all, thank you very much for your kind words.
There certainly wasn’t any boasting by me. Apart from any tongue-in-cheek comments during flirtatious banter, I have deliberately avoided any descriptions or references to any aspect of my physical appearance during my entire time here on SM since late last summer, including politely refusing to answer any questions by a couple of female commenters who had directly or indirectly asked me about my appearance in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I also knew that if I named one or two famous individuals who I may bear some resemblance to in order to give the other party an accurate approximation, it would immediately be jumped on my other people as being motivated by arrogance or a desire to show off. I only mentioned it earlier in this thread because of Razib’s direct question aimed at me regarding the fact that some people mistake me for an Iranian (or as someone from certain other backgrounds, as explained earlier) — and even that was based solely on a previous discussion we had engaged in regarding ancient Indian history and the possible anthropological/ethnic links of some groups to other outside the subcontinent.
Any comments I made, again, were clarifications for the benefit of Razib — whom I consider one of my on-line friends here at SM and whom I am on very good terms with — because he has had limited face-to-face experience of South Asians, including those belonging to certain northern groups, and was (inadvertantly) making assertions which were inaccurate. If someone else wants to extrapolate that into “insidious, elite assertions” etc on my part then that is their own misreading and possible baggage colouring their interpretation. I would, however, agree wholeheartedly that some people were indeed appearing to get carried away with affirmations of their own “whiteness”, which is why I discreetly said in my first two paragraphs of post #173 that the people involved should put the brakes on such comments. Clarifying misconceptions is one thing, but when it appears to be turning into grandstanding, it’s time to cut it out.
I am completely neutral and am at no “end” whatsoever. My phenotype may place me at the stereotypical sharp-featured/light-skinned “Northie” side of the debate, with the subjective and specific experiences I may have encountered, but that is irrelevant to this discussion beyond the fact that, for various reasons, during my own life-experience I may have had some degree of close interaction with desi women of a certain description that are more common (at least in their own communities if not in the desi population as a whole) than Razib or other non-northwestern South Asians may be aware. My fundamental point is twofold: 1) Do not make disparaging remarks about unusually light-skinned people as it’s a form of reverse-racism, and 2) One can elevate darker South Asian women and change the perception of desi culture to regard their appearance and skin-tone as being as attractive as the lighter stereotype without simultaneously denigrating/undermining lighter women in order to achieve it.
The examples I gave of jealousy or “pre-emptive” disparagement in my post #119 were not speculation but based on people I knew/know extremely well, including women I am related to in the first example and guys I was once friends with (or have met socially) in the second example. This does not mean that “everyone” behaves this way, but anyone who denies that — for multiple reasons — some darker desi women are jealous of their lighter-skinned sisters (unsurprisingly, considering the attention and often-undeserved glorification the latter receive) and that guys can be jerks by undermining women they may be threatened by in terms of the latter’s attractiveness, is either naive or a liar.
Also, I never specified exactly who on this thread was behaving in a jealous manner, so it’s unwise to assume that it was directed at darker South Asian women en masse or “all” guys who, for one reason or another, may be intimidated by lighter South Asian women and/or may have been shot down by them at some point. I am not backtracking here by any means, but am clearing any confusion in this manner before anyone else starts deciding to cast aspersions on my actions or motivations. However, people’s own negative life experiences certainly are affecting their responses to the posts on this thread, including (obviously) my own comments, and causing them to either guess about my psychological stance on the matter or twist my words entirely.
Which is fine, because this is a loaded subject and our own experiences do affect how we react to things sometimes — I’m certainly not immune to the latter, despite my ongoing efforts at maintaining mental and emotional self-discipline — so at least we should be honest about it, even if sometimes we’re not aware that our perceptions of other’s behaviour is being distorted. It’s only by open dialogue and honest, respectful two-way communcation that any confusion present can be cleared up. Also, as with most things in life, we all need to be ruthlessly honest about our own reactions and responses, and the reasons behind them.
Dharma Queen,
I will address your assertions one by one, since they appear to involve some points made by me:
Very few people have been doing so “gratuitously”. As a point of clarification regarding their own skin-colouring — since this is the basis of this entire thread — Yes people have referred to it, along with detailing their own experiences, but it’s all been critical to the discussion. If this debate was about how women prefer tall men and the bias in Bollywood towards depicting heroes who are (mostly, apart from people like Aamir Khan and Salman Khan) well in excess of the average height for an Indian men, there would be tall guys here stating their own height too and the increased prevalence of tall men in their community, especially if comments had been made in the vein of “most Indian men are 5ft-whatever”.
It’s still (mostly) clarification about their relatives’/community members’ appearance, especially as several of the posts concerned were a part of conversations on this thread between people from basically the same community. You are still, repeatedly, assuming that any such statements are driven by egotism and an attempt to disparage others. I agree that one or two people here were moving slightly in excess of the level of information which was really necessary, but it’s not fundamentally what they were saying which was wrong, but your excessive reaction to it. I am struggling to find a way to politely say that it comes across as self-centred, hypersensitive, and “grievance-driven”.
Assuming that you are referring to my own previous posts, you are taking my comments out of context and have also distorted the meaning by ommitting the critical word “some” before “dark desi women” and, worse, inserting the word “necessarily” before “jealous”. This changes the entire meaning of what I said. Furthermore, I made it clear that I was not just speculating but basing that on direct personal experience. I have already addressed this issue in my response to Communis Rixatrix. If you deny that, rightly or wrongly, there are dark South Asian women who react badly to their lighter compatriots, then you are either not telling the truth or you have not experienced large-scale interaction with other South Asians over an extensive period of time.
It’s stating a fact, not making a moral pronouncement on it or asserting superiority over one’s darker compatriots.
Jai,
There’s nothing polite about jumping to the conclusion that another person’s distaste for colorism stems from personal grievance. And there’s a name for that when it’s coupled with a long-winded exoneration of one’s own preoccupations with colour. It’s called hypocrisy.
My reaction is ‘excessive’ in the same way the reaction of people to racism, sexism, homophobia is ‘excessive’. Interestingly, those who took/take issue with opponents of these social ills were often considered to have ‘excessive’ reactions – hysterical, neurotic, paranoid, self-interested and driven by ‘personal grievance’.
“Kavita:
Just your use of the word ‘pale’ as opposed to ‘fair’ shows your bias against light-skinned people.”
I disagree. “Pale” is a neutral term, while “fair” implies a false positive to what should be neutral. Perhaps this is a difference in regional speech?