Wise Donkee and Jai,
Firstly, let me congratulate and thank you both for making extremely good points, and for making this one of the best discussions I have had in recent times.
I believe, I was misunderstood on a few points, and also there was a margin for me to be more clear.
I'm responding to the points individually, but some points would be response to similar/same points raised by you.
1. I of course, did read your post (as has been the case in the past! :) ). What I said follows from simple logic, that whatever color one makes sacrosanct, it could be attached to that ideology, and certain events could be blamed on that 'orange' ideology thus giving rise to the concept of orange terror.
But since your post was satirical, let me put forth my guess of what you had wanted to convey. You were not poking fun as much at PC as against those reacting against the term 'Saffron terror'. I would object to such term only if its usage comes from someone proclaiming "terror/terrorists have no religion". And to the best of my knowledge, PC and his political party has used this line of logic in the past in case of terror attacks when suspects were Muslim. My assumption (which I have reasoned out in the above comment) is that by 'saffron' he simply meant 'Hindu'. So, saffron terror means 'Hindu terror'. Whether such kind of terror exists, or if this label is appropriate would be an entirely different issue. But the term must not be used by those claiming that terror has no religion, except for of course, if they also specify that they have changed their view recently, and now they do believe that "terror could have religion".
2. Yes, environmentalists are an entire different issue altogether. Perhaps, I have heard the opinions of only pseudo-scientific and shrill variety, who believe in some Avatar (the movie)-kind of loving Mother Earth that needs to be saved - with saving their beloved 'Mother Earth' being the end in itself and with no concern for welfare of humans. What I find irritating about such (whose opinions I have come across) environmentalists is that they create many obstacles in path of development and production of basic resources like food/electricity, but hardly come up with even remotely practicable solutions as to what is to be done about immense population that yearns for the very same things? Truly sorry for having generalized their points of contention. Of course, there must be sensible and scientific environmentalists, but unfortunately I have not come across any in India. That is the reason for my generalization, but I admit, such generalization by me was a wrong thing to do. By 'religion of peace' I was referring to Islam. There is no equivocation between Islam and environment activism, except that both share their symbolic color in green. And no, I don't want people with important positions to use ambiguous metaphors. PC should have used instead of 'Saffron terror' whatever ideology he felt was truly behind such events. I prefer 'Naxalism' or 'Maoism' to 'red terror', because communist ideology per se does not call for mass murders, though it seems to have given rise to situations where mass murders become more acceptable in the society that follows that ideology, or when it is imposed. But more important thing to notice is that Mao had said the following (from Wikipedia):
So, we know what part of ideology called 'Maoism' is used by people to take up violence. Moreover, if Wikipedia article is to be believed, over 60 million people were killed by policies of Mao. So, it is not that followers of Mao are doing something drastically different from their deity (yes, I know technically maoism is not a religion, but when someone's precepts are elevated to the level of 'divine', 'holy' and 'unquestionable' there is little that separates such ideology from religion).
I do not need to go into what part of Quran supports violence and xenophobia as both of you have read the relevant verses on my blog, so the term 'Islamic terror' makes some sense. But what is 'saffron'? It is a serious question to those who find nothing objectionable in the ambiguity that use of such term entails. I am a firm believer of separation of religion from state, and obviously being an atheist I don't find anything even remotely offending about that usage. My greatest fear is that hiding behind such metaphors takes away the accountability of answering/clarifying that should (ideally) go along with accusation of any nature.
3. I really don't think there were people who were complaining merely because 'saffron' color is associated with Hinduism. They were complaining because by 'saffron' PC meant only 'Hindu'. If not 'Hindu' what had he meant? Why not some other color, there are so many to choose from in the electromagnetic spectrum of 400 nm to 700 nm, right? ;)
I will now respond to the color issue (which incidentally has become the focus of debate here, but I am not complaining, because that is more interesting and something about which we can do something more easily!):
But firstly, I want to thank Jai for pointing out that "individual counter examples are of little relief".
Let me summarize what I had wanted to say in my previous lot of comments, and also respond to other points raised:
1. It is true that there exists a (strong) preference for the light colored skin at least in the Indian society.
2. I am not sure what part of this preference could be attributable to the social conditioning (let's say 'memetics' provisionally) and what part is actually genetic. Here, I want to point out that there indeed are hypotheses (some of them sound quite silly) for various attributes that attract humans to one another sexually and otherwise. This includes, right from muscular nature of men, size and shape of breasts of women, the kind odorants both the sexes emit, height of person, what kind of voice we like in people, or why males are attracted to female's breast, etc. But all these preferences are prevalent enough to make us suspect that there could be an evolutionary basis for that. And here I emphasize on suspect, meaning I am not at all confident, and this I had tried to highlight by saying "could be (not necesarily)".
3. What I did not clarify previously, but since Jai has raised the issue, I now need to is, that just because something might have a genetic basis, it does not become alright to let that trait express, especially so, if it is harmful to individuals/societies. More precisely, just because (supposedly), preference for fair skin color might have a genetic basis, it does not become alright to use it to wrongly discriminate against people. The only reason I mention this point is, that *IF* this preference has a genetic basis, then it would be more challenging to remove that bias than if it would be based simply on cultural conditioning, because it can be seen that some of the cultural conditioning can be overturned in just a couple of generations, but not so, if the trait is genetic. If it is genetic, our effort to counter will have to be better thought out. E.g., women preferring muscular men seems to have a genetic basis (healthier babies, protection from wild beasts and all that), and body composition and metabolism are greatly genetically determined (Indians are prone to central obesity, and thus to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart and kidney disorders, etc). But it would be discriminatory against others as well as silly for a woman to select a muscular man for job of an accountant for merely being muscular over other equally 'good' or better candidates. What would we say if a woman prefers muscular men to marry? Now replace, 'men' with 'women' and 'muscular' with 'fair'. If it's pointed out that one could join a gym to build one's muscles, that's not the point, because doing so would correspond to one's using cosmetic products and surgeries to 'improve' one's skin color. I also do not think that woman getting attracted to muscular men actively think while getting attracted something on the lines of 'Yo! My baby would be stronger, and 'my man' would protect me from stray dogs and molesters'! ;)
4. If there is a genetic component for it (and even if it is not), my thrust is on creating a social environment where it becomes easier to express our insecurities and prejudices freely. Remember, just saying that I harbor a bias for fair skin would not necessarily mean I would exercise that bias. Just as I pointed out above, being aware that I could harbor such a bias would rather make me more careful to try to filter it out from my behavior (yes, I had also meant to include professional interactions - of the selecting the candidate from job-interview variety). Try to think of these prejudices (whether they be for fair skin color, height, built of a person, voice, etc.) as milder psychiatric disorders or some venereal disease. The more we demonize the ones 'suffering' from them, the more would they remain in the 'closet'. Whereas, if our attitude and tone towards these prejudices is one of greater empathy and lesser hatred, we might make people more honest about themselves. E.g., consider the following:
But instead unfortunately what currently is happening is that majority of educated people are getting all sanctimonious and trying to shout from their desktops (not roof tops! ;) ) that they are free of those prejudices. Because if they admit, they would be looked down upon by other people who also (largely) possess the same prejudices. This a very risky situation for the society to be in! Imagine, how many patients of (mild) psychiatric disorder will persist in the society and how much harm would they do! Only to serve our political correctness.
5. WDM: "You know that no 2 individuals can be equal in all respects except color. so the point is, how much importance do you give to the color."
Yes, that's right. But unfortunately not everyone is introspective enough to make out which traits in particular make them like/dislike a person. So, the only way to reveal our latent prejudices is such 'test-and-control' thought experiments.
6. WDM: "Or you might decide to hire a fairer assistant simply because you think, fairer is smarter. or you promote a fairer person because you think they have more chances of success or whatever."
This is a very good point! I personally don't know why I possess the (mild) preference for the fair skin, but of course I have never extrapolated this preference to think that it represents intelligence or smartness. I think 'fair & lovely' and other similar ads never claim that "those possessing fair skin color are smart or that becoming fairer would raise the IQ", but they simply make a point that "fair skin would make you *perceived* as being smarter and more likely to succeed". I'm honestly not peeved with such ad-makers (though I find them patently silly and unrealistic). What is worrying is that people fall for such ads. And by "falling for" I'm not trying to say that they are stupid to be believing those ads (because they are just serving the market, meaning great many people actually want to become fairer; try to imagine a product claiming to make one bald, or greying the hair or giving rise to moustache and beard in females or one staining teeth yellow - how many would want to buy it, how much would the ads and products succeed?). So, my point is they are catering to a market simply because such prejudice already exists in the society.
But one more reason I really feel sorry for those falling for such ads is the underlying mentality that might make them use such 'shortcuts' to succeed or be more acceptable in the society. I'm going to make a contentious point here: If someone feels it is alright to get a job (that does not require fairness as a trait) simply for being fair as that got them unduly ahead of the competition, they might also feel it is alright to bribe/seduce/cajole (qualities that are not looked for in the candidate) to get unduly ahead of the competition. Likewise, if someone is so bothered about social acceptability only to be seen as 'pleasing' to the others' eyes, they are more likely to do other things that are perceived to be 'pleasing' (to other perception modalities), say, by being hypocritical, politically correct, or lying. As I said, this point is contentious, but do let me know if you completely disagree or partly agree and have thought about it this way or not.
7. WD: "You might point out Rani Mukherjee, someone might point out Himesh Resh...."
I don't know what point you were trying to make, I was talking from perspective of positively forgettable/displeasing voice and not of gender. Perhaps, Sachin Tendulkar's voice would have been better example than Himesh from among males? The fact that many find Shreya Ghoshal's or Himesh's voice and singing much better is indicated from the number of albums they have sold. I had given this example simply because again if for any job that does not require one to have a good voice, keeping all factors equal people would be biased in favor of one possessing a better voice. And even this preference is as much silly as that for skin color.
8. WD: "in 5 & 6 you are just being a racist by thinking a darker peson is not beautiful enough and not competent enough. and fairness cream manufacturers say its ok if this happens."
I'm afraid, this affectation for color could go either ways. Some might think good-looking (fair) people to be smart and more competent, but on the other hand others might consider them dumb simply for having a fair skin (e.g, blonde jokes, of course, blonde refers to the color of hair, but they also tend to have a lighter skin; also, I'm not sure if that feeling is merely restricted to jokes or that some people actually think blondes to be dumb). Of course, either kind of stereotyping is silly.
9. WD: "I protest both against the bias and the cream advertisement which reinforces the bias."
I am highly unlikely to tell you something on the lines of "why did you not protest against this or that", though I might ask your views on other issues that you might be not protesting against. But the reason I brought out other examples of prejudices similar to that for skin color is because I want to highlight that they also exist, and might be making us subconsciously unduly biased against others. But another reason, I brought out is to demonstrate there is no way we can tell someone that "your liking the persons with fairer skin is intrinsically wrong". If we tell that, then we will have tell people to stop using other criteria also for liking people (e.g., intelligence, height, caste, vivacity, voice, 'figure'), etc. The thing that binds all the traits I mentioned is that they are significantly determined by circumstance of one's birth. One does not have control over those factors. These prejudices put those possessing the less 'desirable' trait at disadvantage. I also do no believe intelligence is all that subjective. There would be few who would argue that Einstein or Newton or Bertrand Russel were dumb. Sorry to give extreme examples here. Moreover, even if assessment of intelligence is subjective, it puts those 'perceived' to be less intelligent at disadvantage, why should such a discrimination be tolerated? Keeping all factors equal if a lady finds me 'too intellectual' and decides to marry someone else who she feels is more 'practical and grounded', would that be discriminatory against me or not? Or alternatively, I am rejected for being perceived as less intelligent than someone else, would that again be right?
10. WD: "On people not voicing their suspicions. well, there might be those who have been frightened of monsters in the dark and who might be apprehensive of darkness, but its not necessary that they should insist with others that monsters of the dark exist"
It's not about insisting to others, but unless such belief is articulated, they cannot be proved wrong (if they're wrong, that is), nor can they be stopped from taking decisions based on those beliefs. Moreover, one's beliefs whatever they be should be discussed, and we should create an environment that allows their discussion. There may or may not be monsters in the dark, but how does one know without knowing why others believe or disbelieve such assertions?
11. WD: "krishna and shiva are not exactly light skinned."
But their skin color is not the reason they are worshipped. Some people might fear divine retribution for calling them 'bad looking' [of course, gods seek retribution through their believers. See, e.g., what merely painting one of the agents of God could result in]. It must be also noted that they are portrayed to be blue, and NOT exactly dark, which gives them a surreal appearance. It must be asked what intrinsic bias in our minds makes us paint Krishna as blue despite the name being given as 'Shaam' ("dusky"). Why is Krishna almost never painted to be as dark as some laborer working in the sun in fields? What prevents such truthful depiction? Anyway, I was talking of references that equate fair skin color with good looks. Though, I must say I have not dug sufficiently into the Hindu mythology to argue one way or the other on this.
12. WD: "Bias is simply an excuse to intellectual laziness and lack of humanity."
It is this attitude that I fear a lot. Can some biases not be based on observations? E.g., I've seen mosquitoes 'bite' me, whereas houseflies usually don't. Mosquito bites are unpleasant. Assume for the time being, I have no scientific knowledge that mosquitoes and houseflies both can cause diseases. Also note that not all mosquitoes have bitten me. Would I be wrong if I'm biased against mosquitoes and kill them for giving me the itch?
What biases are good and what are bad? How do we determine that without logic-based discussions? E.g., I might be biased towards honest people, who introspect, analyze things and are willing to admit they were wrong if proved so, and who display consistency in their ideas, words and actions. I would like such a person to be my wife, friend, colleague, boss, parents. Yes, one might disagree with which individuals qualify on these criteria and how strongly. But is this bias simply an excuse to intellectual laziness and lack of humanity? Now, think of skin-color, height, voice, etc.
13. WD: "My problem with many of those who object to the term "Saffron Terror" is this. They don't think its obscene if Ram Sena has goons, who hit girls. They don't think Sex Swami and other Godmen who are just criminals use the saffron color to hide their intentions. Its the selective process that reflects their hypocrisy."
I think I have outlined the reasons I object to the term 'saffron terror'. Biggest reason is that it is ambiguous. It does not specify what set of 'beliefs' constitute 'saffron'. If PC and others want to be clear enough on this, they must use the term 'Hindu terror' (perhaps just like 'Islamic terror' and 'maoism') without inhibition, so that their label could be brought into the domain of reasonable debate. But by using 'saffron' they are only scoring a political goal, without taking responsibility to explain what they mean by using such term.
14. "They (those who object to the term "Saffron terror"") don't think its obscene if Ram Sena has goons, who hit girls. They don't think Sex Swami and other Godmen who are just criminals use the saffron color to hide their intentions. Its the selective process that reflects their hypocrisy."
I'm afraid, that is again a stereotyping. You will find an exception in me. I object to the use of the term "saffron terror" and even more strongly oppose Ram Sene kind of organizations, their activities and all kind of swamis and Godmen whose claim to respect is understanding God better than others do. If they indulge in consensual sex, though, that is not a problem with me (provided, they do not prescribe celibacy themselves).
15. "On matrimonial ads, beauty and handsome are subjective..."
I have explained before that even if the estimate of amount/degree of a particular trait ('handsomeness', for instance) possessed by a person is subjective, having such preference still amounts to discrimination against those who are (subjectively) perceived to possess undesirable amount/degree of that trait. So, how exactly does this subjectivity help those who get discriminated against?
16. "I think people look for smartness which includes a social skillset and not just IQ"
Is it alright to to discriminate against those who possess more of 'social-dumbness' (corresponding to skin's high melanin content), which is opposite of social smartness? Is all of this social smartness acquired through hardwork, or is lot of it derived from how parents bring up their children or which school they go to, which neighborhood they would have lived in - factors over which children have little control (just like skin color, height, voice, intelligence, caste)? Scientists are discovering specific genes that correspond to varying levels of neurotransmitters that predispose people to diseases like schizophrenia, mania, depression. It would not be surprising if genes that determine personality are also discovered in a few years. Then what? [Here, I would just like to point out that 'genetic' is not the same as 'hereditary'. Whether children turn out like one parent or the other, or entirely different would depend on how genes interact with each other, but the important point is, there is absolutely no control over what set of genes one gets and how they will 'operate'].
17. WD: "it doesn't help when wheatish skin people believe they are inferior and get intimidated"
Very good point! But, if someone dislikes me for my appearance, I will return that dislike for that person's giving such inordinate importance to physical appearance. It just means their mind is less receptive to ideas, words and actions as compared to appearance. Such person (of either gender) and I would be inherently incompatible. I will never plead that "please consider me 'good-looking' (despite my baldness, not-so-tall stature, obesity, acne, scars, etc.)".
The point I want to make is we cannot tell what should others consider to be good-looking (beautiful/handsome) - whether it should be the height or skin color or 'figure' or hair color or its density. If someone finds dark-skinned colored people better-looking (as Jai had brought out an example), then again I must NOT try to make such person feel guilty about it. If lot of people find fair skinned people better looking, what can we do? Or why should we try to change such perception?
There is no significant difference between preferences based on skin color or caste or height, intelligence, etc. Perhaps, why discrimination based on skin color historically drew so much attention is because it is the only conspicuous trait that is dependent on one's 'ethnicity'. Most other traits are not very different across peoples of differing ethnic origins. But what we see in India is not a discrimination based on race (e.g., a light-skinned Punjabi would still be considered to be more pleasing to look at as compared to a darker-skinned Punjabi). Of course, I am not endorsing such preference, but nor am I opposing it as long as other birth-based traits are also opposed.
Jai,
1. Thanks for noting my honesty! :)
2. Though, your usage of 'internalize' is much more keeping in with its conventional meaning, by using it I had meant: harboring a deep-seated bias, yet trying to conceal it by refusing to discuss it, or even lying about its existence.
3. I do believe that some preferences/prejudices/biases are indeed genetic. So, I cannot blame persons for harboring them. In fact, I cannot blame persons for harboring even those biases that were 'injected' into them as part of their upbringing. But what I can and would blame people for is putting those biases/preferences to practice where doing so is clearly uncalled for. E.g., if in a job interview I select a better-looking, but skill-wise less deserving person over someone else more deserving but worse looking, I would be wrong. And I would protest that provided it could be proved that the cause for selection was skin color. It is precisely for this reason that I am against creating an environment that is hostile to discussing one's biases. Because a person who is biased against dark skin if made to look like an absolute devil will vehemently deny being biased, but will keep on practicing that injustice without any hindrance on some pretext or the other. But I would not be wrong in finding certain kind of people better looking. I cannot help who I find better looking! I am against the sanctimonious sloganeering of sorts that goes on in name of 'dark is beautiful'. Please let me decide what/who I find more beautiful. Same holds true for the ads that equate beauty with fairness.
3. My greatest thrust is on pointing out that over time perhaps it would be good if society to could evolve out of this inordinate importance given to appearance. I do not want a society, which tells that "any- and everything should be considered good-looking", but one which says, "Okay, so what if one is good-looking or bad-looking. Big deal!", because former stance reeks of dishonesty. Whether I have a right to ask the 'society' to be some way or the other is a different matter, but I wish it were like that. :)
Unknown!!,
Thanks for the appreciation!
Yes, I agree with you. If you will notice, I have addressed your point above. I would find it wrong if someone is discriminated against because of skin color (or any other trait that is largely birth-determined) when that particular trait is not the one required for accomplishing that job.
To conclude (from my side):
Firstly, let me congratulate and thank you both for making extremely good points, and for making this one of the best discussions I have had in recent times.
I believe, I was misunderstood on a few points, and also there was a margin for me to be more clear.
I'm responding to the points individually, but some points would be response to similar/same points raised by you.
1. I of course, did read your post (as has been the case in the past! :) ). What I said follows from simple logic, that whatever color one makes sacrosanct, it could be attached to that ideology, and certain events could be blamed on that 'orange' ideology thus giving rise to the concept of orange terror.
But since your post was satirical, let me put forth my guess of what you had wanted to convey. You were not poking fun as much at PC as against those reacting against the term 'Saffron terror'. I would object to such term only if its usage comes from someone proclaiming "terror/terrorists have no religion". And to the best of my knowledge, PC and his political party has used this line of logic in the past in case of terror attacks when suspects were Muslim. My assumption (which I have reasoned out in the above comment) is that by 'saffron' he simply meant 'Hindu'. So, saffron terror means 'Hindu terror'. Whether such kind of terror exists, or if this label is appropriate would be an entirely different issue. But the term must not be used by those claiming that terror has no religion, except for of course, if they also specify that they have changed their view recently, and now they do believe that "terror could have religion".
2. Yes, environmentalists are an entire different issue altogether. Perhaps, I have heard the opinions of only pseudo-scientific and shrill variety, who believe in some Avatar (the movie)-kind of loving Mother Earth that needs to be saved - with saving their beloved 'Mother Earth' being the end in itself and with no concern for welfare of humans. What I find irritating about such (whose opinions I have come across) environmentalists is that they create many obstacles in path of development and production of basic resources like food/electricity, but hardly come up with even remotely practicable solutions as to what is to be done about immense population that yearns for the very same things? Truly sorry for having generalized their points of contention. Of course, there must be sensible and scientific environmentalists, but unfortunately I have not come across any in India. That is the reason for my generalization, but I admit, such generalization by me was a wrong thing to do. By 'religion of peace' I was referring to Islam. There is no equivocation between Islam and environment activism, except that both share their symbolic color in green. And no, I don't want people with important positions to use ambiguous metaphors. PC should have used instead of 'Saffron terror' whatever ideology he felt was truly behind such events. I prefer 'Naxalism' or 'Maoism' to 'red terror', because communist ideology per se does not call for mass murders, though it seems to have given rise to situations where mass murders become more acceptable in the society that follows that ideology, or when it is imposed. But more important thing to notice is that Mao had said the following (from Wikipedia):
"Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly, and modestly. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another."
So, we know what part of ideology called 'Maoism' is used by people to take up violence. Moreover, if Wikipedia article is to be believed, over 60 million people were killed by policies of Mao. So, it is not that followers of Mao are doing something drastically different from their deity (yes, I know technically maoism is not a religion, but when someone's precepts are elevated to the level of 'divine', 'holy' and 'unquestionable' there is little that separates such ideology from religion).
I do not need to go into what part of Quran supports violence and xenophobia as both of you have read the relevant verses on my blog, so the term 'Islamic terror' makes some sense. But what is 'saffron'? It is a serious question to those who find nothing objectionable in the ambiguity that use of such term entails. I am a firm believer of separation of religion from state, and obviously being an atheist I don't find anything even remotely offending about that usage. My greatest fear is that hiding behind such metaphors takes away the accountability of answering/clarifying that should (ideally) go along with accusation of any nature.
3. I really don't think there were people who were complaining merely because 'saffron' color is associated with Hinduism. They were complaining because by 'saffron' PC meant only 'Hindu'. If not 'Hindu' what had he meant? Why not some other color, there are so many to choose from in the electromagnetic spectrum of 400 nm to 700 nm, right? ;)
I will now respond to the color issue (which incidentally has become the focus of debate here, but I am not complaining, because that is more interesting and something about which we can do something more easily!):
But firstly, I want to thank Jai for pointing out that "individual counter examples are of little relief".
Let me summarize what I had wanted to say in my previous lot of comments, and also respond to other points raised:
1. It is true that there exists a (strong) preference for the light colored skin at least in the Indian society.
2. I am not sure what part of this preference could be attributable to the social conditioning (let's say 'memetics' provisionally) and what part is actually genetic. Here, I want to point out that there indeed are hypotheses (some of them sound quite silly) for various attributes that attract humans to one another sexually and otherwise. This includes, right from muscular nature of men, size and shape of breasts of women, the kind odorants both the sexes emit, height of person, what kind of voice we like in people, or why males are attracted to female's breast, etc. But all these preferences are prevalent enough to make us suspect that there could be an evolutionary basis for that. And here I emphasize on suspect, meaning I am not at all confident, and this I had tried to highlight by saying "could be (not necesarily)".
3. What I did not clarify previously, but since Jai has raised the issue, I now need to is, that just because something might have a genetic basis, it does not become alright to let that trait express, especially so, if it is harmful to individuals/societies. More precisely, just because (supposedly), preference for fair skin color might have a genetic basis, it does not become alright to use it to wrongly discriminate against people. The only reason I mention this point is, that *IF* this preference has a genetic basis, then it would be more challenging to remove that bias than if it would be based simply on cultural conditioning, because it can be seen that some of the cultural conditioning can be overturned in just a couple of generations, but not so, if the trait is genetic. If it is genetic, our effort to counter will have to be better thought out. E.g., women preferring muscular men seems to have a genetic basis (healthier babies, protection from wild beasts and all that), and body composition and metabolism are greatly genetically determined (Indians are prone to central obesity, and thus to diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart and kidney disorders, etc). But it would be discriminatory against others as well as silly for a woman to select a muscular man for job of an accountant for merely being muscular over other equally 'good' or better candidates. What would we say if a woman prefers muscular men to marry? Now replace, 'men' with 'women' and 'muscular' with 'fair'. If it's pointed out that one could join a gym to build one's muscles, that's not the point, because doing so would correspond to one's using cosmetic products and surgeries to 'improve' one's skin color. I also do not think that woman getting attracted to muscular men actively think while getting attracted something on the lines of 'Yo! My baby would be stronger, and 'my man' would protect me from stray dogs and molesters'! ;)
4. If there is a genetic component for it (and even if it is not), my thrust is on creating a social environment where it becomes easier to express our insecurities and prejudices freely. Remember, just saying that I harbor a bias for fair skin would not necessarily mean I would exercise that bias. Just as I pointed out above, being aware that I could harbor such a bias would rather make me more careful to try to filter it out from my behavior (yes, I had also meant to include professional interactions - of the selecting the candidate from job-interview variety). Try to think of these prejudices (whether they be for fair skin color, height, built of a person, voice, etc.) as milder psychiatric disorders or some venereal disease. The more we demonize the ones 'suffering' from them, the more would they remain in the 'closet'. Whereas, if our attitude and tone towards these prejudices is one of greater empathy and lesser hatred, we might make people more honest about themselves. E.g., consider the following:
"See, it is alright to have those prejudices insofar as you do not take important decisions in your life under their influence. Everyone has some prejudices. The possible reasons you could have the said bias are 1, 2 and 3. As you can see, it is unfair as well as improper to base our decisions on that prejudice because of reasons a, b and c. Now tell me, why do you think a person possessing trait X is liked/disliked by you? Will the trait X have a bearing on what you need the person in its possession of for? Will its possession/absence make significant difference to important areas of your life? Is some other trait more important than trait X in what you need that person for?"
But instead unfortunately what currently is happening is that majority of educated people are getting all sanctimonious and trying to shout from their desktops (not roof tops! ;) ) that they are free of those prejudices. Because if they admit, they would be looked down upon by other people who also (largely) possess the same prejudices. This a very risky situation for the society to be in! Imagine, how many patients of (mild) psychiatric disorder will persist in the society and how much harm would they do! Only to serve our political correctness.
5. WDM: "You know that no 2 individuals can be equal in all respects except color. so the point is, how much importance do you give to the color."
Yes, that's right. But unfortunately not everyone is introspective enough to make out which traits in particular make them like/dislike a person. So, the only way to reveal our latent prejudices is such 'test-and-control' thought experiments.
6. WDM: "Or you might decide to hire a fairer assistant simply because you think, fairer is smarter. or you promote a fairer person because you think they have more chances of success or whatever."
This is a very good point! I personally don't know why I possess the (mild) preference for the fair skin, but of course I have never extrapolated this preference to think that it represents intelligence or smartness. I think 'fair & lovely' and other similar ads never claim that "those possessing fair skin color are smart or that becoming fairer would raise the IQ", but they simply make a point that "fair skin would make you *perceived* as being smarter and more likely to succeed". I'm honestly not peeved with such ad-makers (though I find them patently silly and unrealistic). What is worrying is that people fall for such ads. And by "falling for" I'm not trying to say that they are stupid to be believing those ads (because they are just serving the market, meaning great many people actually want to become fairer; try to imagine a product claiming to make one bald, or greying the hair or giving rise to moustache and beard in females or one staining teeth yellow - how many would want to buy it, how much would the ads and products succeed?). So, my point is they are catering to a market simply because such prejudice already exists in the society.
But one more reason I really feel sorry for those falling for such ads is the underlying mentality that might make them use such 'shortcuts' to succeed or be more acceptable in the society. I'm going to make a contentious point here: If someone feels it is alright to get a job (that does not require fairness as a trait) simply for being fair as that got them unduly ahead of the competition, they might also feel it is alright to bribe/seduce/cajole (qualities that are not looked for in the candidate) to get unduly ahead of the competition. Likewise, if someone is so bothered about social acceptability only to be seen as 'pleasing' to the others' eyes, they are more likely to do other things that are perceived to be 'pleasing' (to other perception modalities), say, by being hypocritical, politically correct, or lying. As I said, this point is contentious, but do let me know if you completely disagree or partly agree and have thought about it this way or not.
7. WD: "You might point out Rani Mukherjee, someone might point out Himesh Resh...."
I don't know what point you were trying to make, I was talking from perspective of positively forgettable/displeasing voice and not of gender. Perhaps, Sachin Tendulkar's voice would have been better example than Himesh from among males? The fact that many find Shreya Ghoshal's or Himesh's voice and singing much better is indicated from the number of albums they have sold. I had given this example simply because again if for any job that does not require one to have a good voice, keeping all factors equal people would be biased in favor of one possessing a better voice. And even this preference is as much silly as that for skin color.
8. WD: "in 5 & 6 you are just being a racist by thinking a darker peson is not beautiful enough and not competent enough. and fairness cream manufacturers say its ok if this happens."
I'm afraid, this affectation for color could go either ways. Some might think good-looking (fair) people to be smart and more competent, but on the other hand others might consider them dumb simply for having a fair skin (e.g, blonde jokes, of course, blonde refers to the color of hair, but they also tend to have a lighter skin; also, I'm not sure if that feeling is merely restricted to jokes or that some people actually think blondes to be dumb). Of course, either kind of stereotyping is silly.
9. WD: "I protest both against the bias and the cream advertisement which reinforces the bias."
I am highly unlikely to tell you something on the lines of "why did you not protest against this or that", though I might ask your views on other issues that you might be not protesting against. But the reason I brought out other examples of prejudices similar to that for skin color is because I want to highlight that they also exist, and might be making us subconsciously unduly biased against others. But another reason, I brought out is to demonstrate there is no way we can tell someone that "your liking the persons with fairer skin is intrinsically wrong". If we tell that, then we will have tell people to stop using other criteria also for liking people (e.g., intelligence, height, caste, vivacity, voice, 'figure'), etc. The thing that binds all the traits I mentioned is that they are significantly determined by circumstance of one's birth. One does not have control over those factors. These prejudices put those possessing the less 'desirable' trait at disadvantage. I also do no believe intelligence is all that subjective. There would be few who would argue that Einstein or Newton or Bertrand Russel were dumb. Sorry to give extreme examples here. Moreover, even if assessment of intelligence is subjective, it puts those 'perceived' to be less intelligent at disadvantage, why should such a discrimination be tolerated? Keeping all factors equal if a lady finds me 'too intellectual' and decides to marry someone else who she feels is more 'practical and grounded', would that be discriminatory against me or not? Or alternatively, I am rejected for being perceived as less intelligent than someone else, would that again be right?
10. WD: "On people not voicing their suspicions. well, there might be those who have been frightened of monsters in the dark and who might be apprehensive of darkness, but its not necessary that they should insist with others that monsters of the dark exist"
It's not about insisting to others, but unless such belief is articulated, they cannot be proved wrong (if they're wrong, that is), nor can they be stopped from taking decisions based on those beliefs. Moreover, one's beliefs whatever they be should be discussed, and we should create an environment that allows their discussion. There may or may not be monsters in the dark, but how does one know without knowing why others believe or disbelieve such assertions?
11. WD: "krishna and shiva are not exactly light skinned."
But their skin color is not the reason they are worshipped. Some people might fear divine retribution for calling them 'bad looking' [of course, gods seek retribution through their believers. See, e.g., what merely painting one of the agents of God could result in]. It must be also noted that they are portrayed to be blue, and NOT exactly dark, which gives them a surreal appearance. It must be asked what intrinsic bias in our minds makes us paint Krishna as blue despite the name being given as 'Shaam' ("dusky"). Why is Krishna almost never painted to be as dark as some laborer working in the sun in fields? What prevents such truthful depiction? Anyway, I was talking of references that equate fair skin color with good looks. Though, I must say I have not dug sufficiently into the Hindu mythology to argue one way or the other on this.
12. WD: "Bias is simply an excuse to intellectual laziness and lack of humanity."
It is this attitude that I fear a lot. Can some biases not be based on observations? E.g., I've seen mosquitoes 'bite' me, whereas houseflies usually don't. Mosquito bites are unpleasant. Assume for the time being, I have no scientific knowledge that mosquitoes and houseflies both can cause diseases. Also note that not all mosquitoes have bitten me. Would I be wrong if I'm biased against mosquitoes and kill them for giving me the itch?
What biases are good and what are bad? How do we determine that without logic-based discussions? E.g., I might be biased towards honest people, who introspect, analyze things and are willing to admit they were wrong if proved so, and who display consistency in their ideas, words and actions. I would like such a person to be my wife, friend, colleague, boss, parents. Yes, one might disagree with which individuals qualify on these criteria and how strongly. But is this bias simply an excuse to intellectual laziness and lack of humanity? Now, think of skin-color, height, voice, etc.
13. WD: "My problem with many of those who object to the term "Saffron Terror" is this. They don't think its obscene if Ram Sena has goons, who hit girls. They don't think Sex Swami and other Godmen who are just criminals use the saffron color to hide their intentions. Its the selective process that reflects their hypocrisy."
I think I have outlined the reasons I object to the term 'saffron terror'. Biggest reason is that it is ambiguous. It does not specify what set of 'beliefs' constitute 'saffron'. If PC and others want to be clear enough on this, they must use the term 'Hindu terror' (perhaps just like 'Islamic terror' and 'maoism') without inhibition, so that their label could be brought into the domain of reasonable debate. But by using 'saffron' they are only scoring a political goal, without taking responsibility to explain what they mean by using such term.
14. "They (those who object to the term "Saffron terror"") don't think its obscene if Ram Sena has goons, who hit girls. They don't think Sex Swami and other Godmen who are just criminals use the saffron color to hide their intentions. Its the selective process that reflects their hypocrisy."
I'm afraid, that is again a stereotyping. You will find an exception in me. I object to the use of the term "saffron terror" and even more strongly oppose Ram Sene kind of organizations, their activities and all kind of swamis and Godmen whose claim to respect is understanding God better than others do. If they indulge in consensual sex, though, that is not a problem with me (provided, they do not prescribe celibacy themselves).
15. "On matrimonial ads, beauty and handsome are subjective..."
I have explained before that even if the estimate of amount/degree of a particular trait ('handsomeness', for instance) possessed by a person is subjective, having such preference still amounts to discrimination against those who are (subjectively) perceived to possess undesirable amount/degree of that trait. So, how exactly does this subjectivity help those who get discriminated against?
16. "I think people look for smartness which includes a social skillset and not just IQ"
Is it alright to to discriminate against those who possess more of 'social-dumbness' (corresponding to skin's high melanin content), which is opposite of social smartness? Is all of this social smartness acquired through hardwork, or is lot of it derived from how parents bring up their children or which school they go to, which neighborhood they would have lived in - factors over which children have little control (just like skin color, height, voice, intelligence, caste)? Scientists are discovering specific genes that correspond to varying levels of neurotransmitters that predispose people to diseases like schizophrenia, mania, depression. It would not be surprising if genes that determine personality are also discovered in a few years. Then what? [Here, I would just like to point out that 'genetic' is not the same as 'hereditary'. Whether children turn out like one parent or the other, or entirely different would depend on how genes interact with each other, but the important point is, there is absolutely no control over what set of genes one gets and how they will 'operate'].
17. WD: "it doesn't help when wheatish skin people believe they are inferior and get intimidated"
Very good point! But, if someone dislikes me for my appearance, I will return that dislike for that person's giving such inordinate importance to physical appearance. It just means their mind is less receptive to ideas, words and actions as compared to appearance. Such person (of either gender) and I would be inherently incompatible. I will never plead that "please consider me 'good-looking' (despite my baldness, not-so-tall stature, obesity, acne, scars, etc.)".
The point I want to make is we cannot tell what should others consider to be good-looking (beautiful/handsome) - whether it should be the height or skin color or 'figure' or hair color or its density. If someone finds dark-skinned colored people better-looking (as Jai had brought out an example), then again I must NOT try to make such person feel guilty about it. If lot of people find fair skinned people better looking, what can we do? Or why should we try to change such perception?
There is no significant difference between preferences based on skin color or caste or height, intelligence, etc. Perhaps, why discrimination based on skin color historically drew so much attention is because it is the only conspicuous trait that is dependent on one's 'ethnicity'. Most other traits are not very different across peoples of differing ethnic origins. But what we see in India is not a discrimination based on race (e.g., a light-skinned Punjabi would still be considered to be more pleasing to look at as compared to a darker-skinned Punjabi). Of course, I am not endorsing such preference, but nor am I opposing it as long as other birth-based traits are also opposed.
Jai,
1. Thanks for noting my honesty! :)
2. Though, your usage of 'internalize' is much more keeping in with its conventional meaning, by using it I had meant: harboring a deep-seated bias, yet trying to conceal it by refusing to discuss it, or even lying about its existence.
3. I do believe that some preferences/prejudices/biases are indeed genetic. So, I cannot blame persons for harboring them. In fact, I cannot blame persons for harboring even those biases that were 'injected' into them as part of their upbringing. But what I can and would blame people for is putting those biases/preferences to practice where doing so is clearly uncalled for. E.g., if in a job interview I select a better-looking, but skill-wise less deserving person over someone else more deserving but worse looking, I would be wrong. And I would protest that provided it could be proved that the cause for selection was skin color. It is precisely for this reason that I am against creating an environment that is hostile to discussing one's biases. Because a person who is biased against dark skin if made to look like an absolute devil will vehemently deny being biased, but will keep on practicing that injustice without any hindrance on some pretext or the other. But I would not be wrong in finding certain kind of people better looking. I cannot help who I find better looking! I am against the sanctimonious sloganeering of sorts that goes on in name of 'dark is beautiful'. Please let me decide what/who I find more beautiful. Same holds true for the ads that equate beauty with fairness.
3. My greatest thrust is on pointing out that over time perhaps it would be good if society to could evolve out of this inordinate importance given to appearance. I do not want a society, which tells that "any- and everything should be considered good-looking", but one which says, "Okay, so what if one is good-looking or bad-looking. Big deal!", because former stance reeks of dishonesty. Whether I have a right to ask the 'society' to be some way or the other is a different matter, but I wish it were like that. :)
Unknown!!,
Thanks for the appreciation!
Yes, I agree with you. If you will notice, I have addressed your point above. I would find it wrong if someone is discriminated against because of skin color (or any other trait that is largely birth-determined) when that particular trait is not the one required for accomplishing that job.
To conclude (from my side):
Problem lies NOT with people considering one trait or the other - skin color, height, 'figure', hair color and density and its length, texture and straightness or the thickness of eyelashes, waist size, color of teeth, or the pitch of one's voice, diction and accent as part of "good-looking" or "impressive personality". But problem lies with people conflating (if they do) good looks and personality with other traits that are more predictive of 'success' of an organization or a relationship - intelligence, maturity, wisdom, experience, empathy, sincerity, honesty, etc.. Also, it is a problem if people use 'good looks' and 'impressive' personality as more important criteria to judge people in areas where these two traits have no role and other traits would be more important.
