1) Padma Lakshmi may not be the sharpest tool in the shed:
“Padma Lakshmi,†she hoped, might one day be on as many food labels as “Paul Newmanâ€â€”“a big hero.†Soon there would be Padma jewelry and fashion, “like Jennifer Lopez,†she said, and television and cookware, “like Martha Stewart.†In September, she sealed a major deal with IMG, the sports-and-entertainment marketing giant. “She has a global image and no end of ideas,†said John Steele, a senior V.P., “so we have multiple agreements.†“Like,†Padma said, “Tiger Woods.†How amazing was it that she, the daughter of a single mother who fled India to escape the stigma of divorce, was poised to become the first Indian woman with an American brand—perhaps the first to self-brand. “I’m as American as anyone else,†she has said. (link)
Ah yes, comparing yourself to Martha Stewart, Jennifer Lopez, and Tiger Woods in a single paragraph. Why not also go for P Diddy, to round out your own private Macy’s commercial of utter delusion? (Read on for more wince-worthy quotes…)
2) But she knows how to work the hair:
(Thanks for the tip, KXB. I know you read Vanity Fair for the articles, too.)
Anna argued for clemency regarding one specific group of people, not ALL Brahmins. Let’s be careful with that huge brush we’re tarring with, please.
After being surrounded by Tamils in DC for the last year or so, I can attest that they do have far more cultural trappings than my other Hindu desi friends, from other regions of India. Or, perhaps, they have merely retained more of these customs. Either way, it’s noticeable and notable.
Yes, this would be the orthodox view, much of which still holds sway in the minds of some people even in the new millenium. In that view she would have “lost caste” a long time ago. But then you bring up the point that according to such orthodoxy, women do not have a varna even to begin with, as it is believed a woman takes up the “varna” or caste of the man she marries. Still she would have had “samskars” from her upbringing in a particular caste family, so technically she would be a combo of both her upbringing and her husband’s caste.
Sure it happens, but in the majority of small towns and villages in India, marriages are arranged according to same caste, same religion and same language (for communication purposes). It may be that a Bengali marries an Orissan, but the two languages are similar enough to communicate. Or if a Bengali marries a Bihari, they may share English as a common language. I’ve never come across someone who only speaks Oriya arranged to someone who only speaks Punjabi or Telegu, etc.
My brain kind of imploded at reading this. I agree that it’s possible for a Brahmin to be a proud in a non-judgemental, non-triumphalist way. But I don’t think it’s all akin to entire other religions like Christianity and Islam, because being Brahmin is hereditary and part of a millenia-old caste system where Brahmin superiority was (and still is) considered the norm. I still find it strange and abhorrent that anyone would want to identify themselves as such, even after moving to the U.S. I find it difficult to separate the historical exclusivity of certain cultural/religious practices from a social/political caste system. And please, spare me the sarcasm about ‘egalitarianism’ – I brought up all that stuff in this thread because so often on SM people try to prove how superior or lighter (and therefore superior) they are, and I thought it would be refreshing for someone to just admit that they don’t give a shit.
But wasn’t the caste system to some extent based on the work one did and hence allowed movement across different castes, and became inflexible over time? At least that’s how I understand it, and maybe someone with more knowledge of Hinduism can shed some light here, though it’s an issue which is bound to remain controversial. And this is not to defend the caste system, as I don’t really care for someone’s caste or the current caste system.
Also, I’m amused by your phrase “.. even after moving to the U.S.” – as if USA is a prejudice-free society/country, or that as soon as one steps into US territory, all the in-grained prejudices (that we all have) automatically disappear. 🙂
You mean Ballimaran near Chandni Chowk, right? 🙂 I have fond memories of walking through the narrow and winding streets of Ballimaran to get to my uncle’s shop there. And buying books from the shops on Nai Sarak nearby.
the way this usually happens is in some debatably subtle way (as in “i went to school in the boston-area”, or “i have trouble finding shoes large enough for me”) and then a huge debate ensues as to the intention of the writer. good times on SM.
I meant, on a larger scale, who really cares about your caste in the U.S.? (other than possibly other brown people, but we’re such a small minority on a national scale) I can understand first-gens hanging on to their caste identity, but with second-gens I think it’s an anomaly considering that they grew up and live in a country where there is no caste system like in India. (That’s not to say that inequality doesn’t exist in the U.S.).
And I’ve heard that interpretation of the caste system before. But that isn’t how it was practiced for most of history in India.
as somebody who is not a practicing brahmin, forget hindu, i am shaking my head in utter disbelief that i am in this discussion 🙂
amaun, i see you chose to ignore the part where i indicated tambram could indicate types of food that people grow up on. for example, i have used it in the ironic context where i refer to myself as a thayir-saadam (curd rice) eating tambram to indicate my own milquetoast or boring nature, or some such thing. it would be similar to somebody talking about old style southern hospitality, or referring to themselves as a southern gentleman. sure, you can immediately decide that such a person is really tacitly advocating lynching and the glory of slavery, but most people would consider that an overreaction.
are there tambrams who still hold on to their brahminism as indicative of their superiority? probably. but you can condemn that regressive attitude (as well as more “modern” attitudes such as tamil chauvinism) without a blanket censorship approach.
“My brain kind of imploded at reading this. I agree that it’s possible for a Brahmin to be a proud in a non-judgemental, non-triumphalist way. But I don’t think it’s all akin to entire other religions like Christianity and Islam, because being Brahmin is hereditary and part of a millenia-old caste system where Brahmin superiority was (and still is) considered the norm.”
sorry, that’s a copout. one (christianity, islam) is just as hereditary, one even millennia-old, and full of inherited biases as another. you think “my god is the only god” is not a norm and not the basis for historical and current prejudice/injustices? what’s the difference between a catholic and a baptist or a syrian orthodox and a pentecostal or a sunni/shia/ahmadiyya? does it matter when jesus/allah is the ultimate source? you think they don’t have inherited biases against one another and those not of their faiths? but if they can be allowed the luxury of separating the label from the historical/current baggage without you finding them abhorrent, why not others?
i was in a small church in peru which has a statue of a conquistador crushing an Incan/the Incan Gods under horsefoot – this in the middle of a church. do you think that’s any better than brahminism? to this date, people worship in that church which also has statues of jesus and mary looking on benevolently as the “heathen” incan is crushed by the soldiers of christ. would anyone dare to openly call any of those worshippers i saw in that church who call themselves catholics racists/abhorrent? what is that but not hereditary bias and triumphalism based on a religious edict? would you find them strange and abhorrent for identifying as peruvian catholics, even if they moved to the u.s? and don’t think that bias against the indigenous peruvians has disappeared.
and what about skin colour? isn’t that hereditary? so what to do about all the people who inherit the oppression-inducing lighter skin? do you find lighter skinned people strange and abhorrent by virtue of their inherited malaise and all the historical exclusivity that is tied to that condition? how is it possible for you to separate their inherited “bias” from who they really are? what if they call themselves white american even as they continue to live in the u.s.? double whammy. what should they call themselves?:) think how the native “americans” must feel about both those terms? what about the native “american” who may find the fact that you may call yourself an american (i don’t know if you do or not) abhorrent given their historical treatment by that “country”? do you feel guilty about living the good life while most of them aren’t? nothing to do with you right? but it’s a historically negatively loaded term that you may/may not proudly use to identify yourself. if they told you they found the term “american” abhorrent, or found Columbus Day abhorrent, would you stop using those terms? What if they said they had nothing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day? Would you still celebrate what some of them find an “abhorrent” term for a day?
“And please, spare me the sarcasm about ‘egalitarianism’ – I brought up all that stuff in this thread because so often on SM people try to prove how superior or lighter (and therefore superior) they are, and I thought it would be refreshing for someone to just admit that they don’t give a shit.”
well it wasn’t entirely sarcastic:) the point is, if you don’t give a s***, you don’t mention it, period. i don’t see why mentions of non-brahmin/non-hindu castes, non-light skintones/regional or religious affiliations should get a free pass, even if they were made to make a point or in some sort of context;) if you’re going to pass judgement on how others see themselves, no matter what the context, then there’s no appropriate context for anyone’s description of themselves. there’s something unpleasant. abhorrent and hereditary associated with all of them.
now i’m off to oppress some people as the firecracker policeman:)
20-25: Beta find some nice girl from the area of India and the same caste 25-30: Beta find yourself some Indian girl. 30-35: Beta find yourself some nice Desi girl. 35-40: Beta find some woman to marry 40-45: Beta adopt some child so I can be a nani for a few years!
If you’re born outside of India, caste system really has no meaning other than in regional language and food traditions.
I’m surprised that Tam-Brahmins are very snooty or that is the impression this board has given me.
Regarding the South American Christian church which depicted the Conquistadors crushing the pagan statues (or osmething to that effect): These indigenous South American Native Americans can opt out of Christianity. They are all equal to any white in Christianity – in theory (of course, I’d love to see an African pope). Every person can aspire to be a different occupation, a different tribe within Christianity, and so on. For example, a Roman Catholic can convert to Southern Baptist by simply marrying his first cousin – just kidding! But you get the idea.
However, Hinduism is the only religion that indoctrinates the superiority of one over the other. Even the word “varna” meant “caste”. One thing great about Hinduism and Indian religions is that we would have never forcibly converted someone. That’s not part of our belief system. Unfortunately, in Hinduism, you can’t decide to be a warrior. Did you know that Sivaji the Marathi warrior had to beg to some Brahmins to be “promoted” to the status of Kshatrya since he was born as a Sudra, and Sudras aren’t supposed to assert themselves?
Finally, there are good and bad people everywhere. I know a Gujju Brahmin who is very charitable, a Tamil Brahmin couple who’ve adopted 2 Orissan kids (one who has bad kidneys), and so on.
WGiiA – You make some good points, but I don’t think what I said was a cop-out and I still don’t buy your argument. The difference between Islam, Christianity or other religions being passed on from generation to generation and being used as vehicles for discrimination and racism, and casteism within Hinduism, is precisely that casteism is within Hinduism. To clarify where I’m coming from on this issue – I’m not some Indian leftist atheist who looks down on all aspects of ‘traditional’ Indian culture. I’m a 1.5 gen in the U.S. who considers herself a faithful Hindu for now, but finds the history and existence of the caste system difficult to reconcile with her beliefs. I hope you would be able to understand why, then, I find it strange and, yes, just a little bit abhorrent, that people would hang onto caste identity in the U.S. But like I said in my first comment on this topic, I also had a relatively caste-less upbringing that was still Hindu, so perhaps it is just difficult for me to understand caste identification for that reason.
look, i’m not looking to hang light-skinned people or brahmins for whatever sins may have been committed by their ancestors, and i have said nothing to indicate that. so please don’t twist my words to make it seem like i actively rail against light-skinned people or brahmins simply because i said that i am neither and i don’t care about it. i don’t think it makes me more superior or ‘real’ either, if that’s what you’re implying. why don’t you spend more of your energy railing against those who think they are superior because they may have light skin or brahmin ancestry? and while you’re at it, ask yourself why it apparently bothers you (and others) so much that some of us think it’s weird that people drop their brahmin heritage into casual conversation (e.g. padma lakshmi, who may or may not have done this).
i’m not advocating that people give up the cultural/religious practices they were raised with – i’m just saying, from a religious perspective, why not open those practices up to a broader group of people? your native american analogy is interesting and you bring up a good point with it, but i simply don’t think it is the same as historical inequality within a religious tradition.
well i was going to say that i brought it up to illustrate my personal experiences with how caste plays out, but you already invalidated that as not deserving of a ‘pass.’ so i guess absolutely no one is allowed to make judgment calls about other people, ever.
oh, this is badly phrased. but let me illustrate what i mean better, again with personal examples that talk about how i have dark sin: there’s just an assumption among brown people, even some 2nd-gens, that lighter is better. once i went shopping with a (light-skinned, kashmiri) friend and we ended up in the make-up section and she recommended some foundation/concealer/power combo to me, but i said oh no, that shade is too light for me, i think they actually don’t have any foundation that would be suitable for my skin tone (thank goodness i’ve discovered l’oreal since then). and she was all, ‘shut up, you’re not dark-skinned! you’re so pretty!’ this statement was just dumb on so many accounts, the first assumption being that my matter-of-factly stating that i was too dark-skinned to find appropriate make-up there was apparently a statement that i thought i was ugly, and the second assumption being that dark = ugly. (and what i gleaned from the experience was that my darkie-ness made her really uncomfortable somehow.)
if you really think that someone shouldn’t have to state that they don’t care about being at the bottom of social hierarchies that cause attitudes such as the one illustrated above, and that it’s somehow regressive? well i wish i lived in your world. i don’t know, i just don’t think it’s inappropriate to bring up such experiences when talking on a forum meant for discussion. also, in my original comment on the topic, i mentioned that the reason i can’t like padma if she does in fact drop the fact that she’s of brahmin ancestry into every conversation, is that i feel it reflects poorly on my religion and on me as a hindu. i’m much more apathetic toward every day people who just think it is something to bond with others over (even if i still think it’s weird and that such identities should be gotten rid of, on a religious basis).
I also want to add that I think Internet discussions on a forum like this are different from real-life conversations. I don’t go on about my skin color or my caste status to people in real life–like I said, I don’t acknowledge I have one to strangers who ask. I don’t think discussing how our experiences being from the backgrounds we’re from or looking how we look may have shaped our perspectives is the same as saying that we don’t advocate egalitarianism; I also don’t think that one person (me) ignoring that inequality exists will suddenly make the world a better place. If that makes me hypocritical… whatever.
Not really. Islam otherizes non-Muslims as kaffirs. Christianity promises the eternal barbeque to anyone who doesn’t believe. Jews think they’re chosen. The difference is Hinduism goes at insiders, and the Arahamics at outsiders.
165 · risible on November 10, 2007 10:35 AM · Direct link >>However, Hinduism is the only religion that indoctrinates the superiority of one over the other.
Not really. Islam otherizes non-Muslims as kaffirs. Christianity promises the eternal barbeque to anyone who doesn’t believe. Jews think they’re chosen. The difference is Hinduism goes at insiders, and the Arahamics at outsiders.
Very good and smart point, risible. OK, but I can easily convert to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. To convert to Judaism, all you need is a financial calculator and knowledge of loan applications 😉 Actually, there was an entire village in Mizoram India of people who converted to Judaism a few years back. Recently, they all migrated to Israel, and they speak pretty good Hebrew.
However, I had one aunty of mine named Jaysree. She’s a Tamil Brahmin, and I actually like her and her husband a good bit. But one day, she told me with a lot of pride that “A person cannot convert to Hinduism. You must be born into Hinduism.” My opinion was that she really wanted to say “A person cannot converto Brahmanism. You must be born into Brahmanism.”
So ‘yes’ – the Abrahamic faiths ‘otherizes’ folks, Hindus OTHERIZES^4 ! Worse over, it otherizes Hindus against other Hindus. Have you ever heard in Hindu literature or Hindu history of Hindus battling againt non-Hindus? Nope. Hindus had more distrust for one another than they did their ilghter-skinned conquerors. How else did: 1. a small garrison of Pashtuns rule India for centuries as the Lodhi Dynasty? Keep in mind, there are only 40M Pashtuns in South Asia, and over 750M Hindus. Why couldn’t the Hindus unite against a small people like this? 2. The 10,000s or so Britishers could suppress 350M+ Indians (Hindu, Muslim, etc.) was all because of Hindu disunity and the Hindu weakness.
There is not a strong “hindu unity” perhaps because under the umbrella of the term “hinduism”, several varied and differing relgions and philosophies exist. there is a unifying theme in each abrahamic faith, despite some small sectarian differences. and even those sects are small in number compared to the sects of hinduism found in even one of it’s religions.
The split between the Abrahamic faiths is much more pronounced since they don’t seem to share as many cultural associations with each other even though that have the same number of close proximity living situations (in the world) as those in India.
Your emoticon does not make your comment less offensive. I don’t have time to explain how many ways that statement is wrong. Whatever you meant, assuming you are going to try and respond that it was harmless, your intentions weren’t to seem intolerant etc, doesn’t make it appropriate or acceptable. Please refrain, for the sake of everyone, from such stupid stereotyping.
169 · SM Intern on November 10, 2007 02:25 PM · Direct link To convert to Judaism, all you need is a financial calculator and knowledge of loan applications 😉 Your emoticon does not make your comment less offensive. I don’t have time to explain how many ways that statement is wrong. Whatever you meant, assuming you are going to try and respond that it was harmless, your intentions weren’t to seem intolerant etc, doesn’t make it appropriate or acceptable. Please refrain, for the sake of everyone, from such stupid stereotyping.
I meant to say “To convert to Zoroastrianism, all you need is to be very light-skinned and/or fantastically wealth (and de-pigmented also helps).”
Could you supply thne pic that makes you think so?
Fake boobs are ridiculously rounde and defy gravity. Never seen hers to looks so in pics. Perhaps she just wears an extreme push-up for some photo shoots?
nala not sure if you are still reading this. Yes – very much christian. Latin Catholic to be precise. Most latin catholics were converted by the Portugese / St Francis Xavier. The converts were mostly fishermen and marginal peasants. My ancestors were marginal farmers on fathers side and fishermen on mothers side. As they say in Malayalam – Aareyan and Paelayan. Caste is not a major marker of Christians from Kerala. Latin Catholics in Kerala dont use caste amongst themselves. Incidentally, most of the Catholic world is Latin Catholic. LCs in Kerala tend to be relatively poor or lower middle class. Kerala also contains other Christian sects including another Catholic sect – Syrian Catholics. SCs were converted by St Thomas in the first century AD and hence often claim to be twice blessed ;). Inter-rite marriage is not uncommon amongst LCs and SCs is not uncommon although is often a matter of last resort. Very few Latin Christians in USA – few can afford to travel outside of Kerala. I have met just one other Mallu Latin Catholic in all my educational / professional life spanning 4 continents. Speaks volumes.
Casually ask a Malayali Catholic overseas if he is an LC or SC – the shock will be priceless.
not where I come from. A fishy smell is such a turn on 😉
“I’m a TamBrahm”= I sound funny to other Tamils/I look funny to other Tamils and can be spotted from a mile away by any of them/ my skinny limbs are strictly rasam-fed/ I use badly mangled pronunciations of Sanskrit words as part of my every-day Tamil/I’m irritable and think its admirably macho to lose my temper/I have no idea how to be hospitable to anyone/My personal rituals are not only arcane, but well into obsessive-compulsive disorder territory/I’m a genius (like all my relatives), and it is really annoying stupider people get ahead in this world/Money?Where it comes from, where it goes, nobody (well, no TamBrahm) knows/I looked down on all other castes but somehow forgot to accumulate wealth and power/All other Tamils secretly think our babes are hot but will never admit it/When I speak in English, I sound like a 19th century Welshman on acid for some odd reason.
“I’m a PunjBrahm” = I am a most superior form of life, higher in cosmic status even than the Scythians, which is why you need to know I’m a PunjBrahm.
As an example of the first, married to an example of the second, I swear upon my curd-rice this is all true…
Thanks for the info melbourne desi, v. interesting. I don’t believe I know any Latin Catholics in the U.S.
Also,
Ewwww! 😉
Wow, it starts with PL and goes on about brahmins and food habits :))
As for me, I was raised as a vegetarian and for long it was simply a psychological barrier for me to eat any kind of meat. Even during formative ages, I was pretty vocal about not acknowledging my caste and all that.
Only recently, I took the bite into all kinds of meats (yes pork and beef too) out there and I dont feel any less or more hindu because of stint of inner rebellion. I am at peace and I think I liked lamb meat the best followed by fried fish. I almost choked on uncooked salmon sushi, even though that kind of smell isn’t totally alien 😉
funnily, my primary association of fishy smells is with railway stations in madras (specifically, west mambalam). but your insinuation gives ‘happy journey’ a totally different meaning 😉
“I’m a TamBrahm”= … “I’m a PunjBrahm” = I am glad the both of you found each other. It must be a gas, each of you knowing you are the pinnacle of your cultures genetic breeding. And now, about to embark on breeding the super-race.
The smell of fish in Mambalam station is mostly one of rotten fish. Quite obnoxious unless if it is surstromming ( Swedish rotten fish) – in which case it is amazing. The fishy smell that I was referring to is the odour found in a fresh fish market. The aroma emanating from some aroused women is quite similar – hence the insinuation.
you may – although quite unlikely that the LCs talk about their affiliation. First names between LCs and SCs are different.
melbourne desi – how are the first names of LCs different? (all i know is, most of my mallu friends have funny names that I like to tease them about. then they get back at me by bringing up my unpronouncable last name :P)
#178
Been there, done that already. Results appear to confirm Francis Galton’s theory of regression to the mean. Drat and curses! Foiled again!! Not to mention my weak attempt at a troll…
LCs and SCs tend to have different first names. E.g. Paul/Anthony are often LC names where Thomas/George are often SC names.
“in all seriousness, it does not need to be anything of this sort (i don’t know in what context pl used it, but it could refer to foods she grow up eating etc., for example). there are certain cultural signifiers that being a tambram implies, which which have nothing to do with oppressing shudras, and somebody could convey those aspects by identifying themselves as tambrams in an appropriate context. on the other hand, a white man flying a confederate flag or calling himself master has a pretty clear implication.
this is not to say that there aren’t delusional tamils/brahmins of the kind boston mahesh mentions.”
Yup, originally I had thought that ‘tambram’ was offensive and discriminatory and all that jazz. But when I had went to university and associated for the first time with other tamils who for the first time were not of my family, i realized that there are cultural signifiers that set myself apart from the other sri lankan tamils.
If I grew up in family that had certain ways of doing things, certain linguistic differences and culinary choices that I have in common with someone else who is not necessary from the same region as me, why is it a crime to identify with that person through a common name?
culturally, if I have a similar upbringing to someone from bombay who happens to be ‘tambram’, and I happen to be ‘tambram’, what is wrong with identifying it?
It’s not simply ‘tamil’ because as I found out in uni, I did not have the same degree of commonality with a tamil from the same area that my parents are from (sri lanka), that I did with someone all the way from bombay who happened to be ‘tambram’.
(I’m sure not a lot of you US-born tamils realize that as almost every tamil you meet in the US is indian and tambram.. in canada it’s different.)
visiting a sri lankan nonbram’s home was as disimilar (it was a revelation when i found out that most tamil people actually danced! (gasp) during weddings) for me as visiting say the home of a telugu person. yet I am allowed to acknowledge the latter.
I mean I grew up around white people, so the only time I was allowed to engage in my culture was with my family. is it my fault that my ‘upbringing’, as i understood it, rests on a certain identity (tambram) other than my regional identity? I mean, I can’t change my family upbringing, can I? and nothing about it entails oppressing anyone, for that matter.