I am/was much lighter skinned, so people actually thought I was either hispanic or an eskimo(darn those MN winters with the fur rimmed hooded coats). Now in the workplace, people can't guess my nationality either, and my boss actually thought I would check the "caucasion" box in the application forms!

the best (to my mind) critique i've seen of the within nation of origin skin color differentials i've seen is that the author is finding the effect of those who end up in blue collar jobs where people are outdoors vs. those who end up in white color jobs where they are indoors. e.g., this summer i was working in an office coding away, but two summers ago i was doing ecological field work, and the differential in skin tone was multiple "shades" for sure. also, there might be a "tall teenager" or "good looking" effect insofar as in cultures like bangladesh (and most cultures world wide) light skin is considered praiseworthy so these people have more self confidence and are willing to demand more and not settle for less.

read the original paper here. free PDF.

read the original paper here. free PDF.

thanks, razib. for whatever reason I couldn't find it earlier.

also, she did try to take outdoor work into account:
Because outdoor work may cause skin color to darken, if jobs involving outdoor work are also lower paying, any estimated relation showing darker skin color and lower wages may be an artifact of the relation between outdoor work and lower wages. Note, however, that outdoor work may warrant higher wages as a compensating differential, which would serve to attenuate any negative effect of darker skin color on wages. There is no information on whether a respondent’s job requires extensive work outdoors, so a direct measure of outdoor sun exposure is not available. As an alternative, I assign an indicator variable for occupations that are likely to require outdoor work.11
8 Since actual start date is not reported, I calculate tenure assuming interview date and start date both fall on the 15th day of the month.
9 Using data on immigrants to Israel, Friedberg (2000) finds the return to experience differs by whether the experience was acquired in the originating country or in Israel, with a much higher return to experience acquired in Israel. Because the sample studied here is comprised of new lawful immigrants, to a large extent their work experience acquired in the U.S. will be reflected in years of tenure.
10 Actual year of birth is missing for 739 observations but is reported as one of 10 categories spanning five years for 90 percent of the observations. I assign the midpoint for each of these ranges and calculate approximate age from the difference between interview year of 2003 and birth year.

also, let me add that i think the framing of this as discrimination in favor a white ideal (see some of the popular pieces) might be correct in the proximate sense, but is pretty eurocentric in the ultimate analysis. many dense agricultural societies seem to associate lighter skin with higher status or positive attributes* (we know about south asia as brown folk, but see china and japan). this predates european hegemony (one can even find it among the incas, who raided the amazonian lowlands to procure lighter skinned concubines). the validity of this generalization about skin tone is strengthened by the fact that other european traits, light eyes and light hair, were not valorized at all prior to european hegemony (brown haired japanese women used to dye it during the tokugawa period).

* stratified societies tend to exhibit specialization of roles, and elites spend more time indoors and not out in the fields, so they are naturally lighter skinned because of environmental conditions. additionally, often genetically naturally lighter skinned women in these populations can "marry up" more easily, and so it tends to reinforce the lightness of the elite genetically over time.

Here is a hypothesis for why lighter skinned immigrants might earn more. If the sample set is restricted to South Asians, then there might be historic social bias included in the skin-tone differential. For instance, lighter skinned historically "upper-castes" are the ones more privileged in most South Asian societies (even though caste, per se, does not have a religious denotation in Islam or Christianity, there are Punjabi vs. Sindhi biases even in Pakistan. Also, the upper castes in Bangladesh tend to be lighter in color than the working classes.) Immigrants from these classes are likelier to have access to have better education and softer skills in navigating the workforce. Thus, it is likelier that they make more money.

In fact, that makes more sense when you consider why the speaker did not include 2nd pr 3rd genners since I think this historical class bias is more likely to be attenuated among this group.

Further, to conclude causality from correlation is somewhat shortsighted in this case.

Good stuff, Naina, Razib. Wow! I'm heading out to buy some Fair and Handsome. Seems like the benefits are more than just "Womens are attracted". Also got to remember the tip about "bathing twice a day....especially during Summers".

Here is a hypothesis for why lighter skinned immigrants might earn more. If the sample set is restricted to South Asians, then there might be historic social bias included in the skin-tone differential. For instance, lighter skinned historically "upper-castes" are the ones more privileged in most South Asian societies

1) good that you are offering up a hypothesis

2) but i bet in the US case you would be wrong.

a) we know that pakistani americans are lower SES than indian americans, and the median skin tone for the former is assuredly lighter than the latter (the bangladeshis are even lower SES than pakistanis and on average rather dark, but their numbers are close to trivial).

b) of the various indian ethnicites in the USofA the skin color model should predict that punjabis are the most affluent and south indians the least, with gujaratis in the middle. i don't know of any data for incomes and wealth across the various ethnic groups, but my own impression (i know fewer brownz than most here, so i am willing to be corrected) that the south indians are probably the most professional of the groups.

minor retraction: rather than the hypothesis being "wrong," i guess it is better to say that the data is probably going to be pretty muddled with a host of confounding factors.

SES = Socio-Economic Status?

yes.

Perfect Razib. Muddled is most accurate. My main point was to illustrate that to infer causality would be wrong in this case.

On average, being one shade lighter has about the same effect as having an additional year of education

So, running to get that facial bleach or Fair and Lovely cream might not yield better results, aside from making one more self-confident. It won't help if you had a year less of school.

SES = Socio-Economic Status?

Razib has SES on the brain.

ses stuff for the brown american national groups (even includes sri lankans!):
per capita income of indian americans $26,415
Sri Lankan – $26,330;
Pakistanis – $17,685;
Bangladeshi – $13,532

Oh the color !!!
I think Dr. Kiran C. Patel is NOT light skinned. Well he gave $30 million grant to University of South Florida to have Patel Center for Global Solutions. Chalk that one up for exception, as Dr. Patel is extremely successful !!!

Razib,

Forget shades of brown for a minute. This is the most interesting observation from your link

50% of the H1-B work visas each year are taken by Asian Indians.

26,000 Asian Indians enter the US every year on student visas.

Foreign born populations: Asian Indians – 73%; Bangladeshi – 83%; Sri Lankan – 79%; Pakistani – 74%.

The question is: During comments, how come almost everyone (keyword: almost, not all) claim to be ABD (only 20-30 % should be ABDs in the comment section or maybe little higher in free for all internet), make clueless critiques about South Asia/ Indian subcontinent/ where ever they immigrated from - SA, Guyana or woes and pains of visa system and loops of immigration or challenges faced by foreign students.

I wonder, I wonder sometimes. It must be manifest destiny. I am Captain America. Memory is always short.

Razib Bhai, you may now get back to the topic.

Light-skinned immigrants in the United States make more money on average than those with darker complexions, and the chief reason appears to be discrimination, a researcher says.

That reasoning does not explain why desi-americans, who are the darkest-skinned immigrants to America after african immigrants, do better than average financially. What does explain that is the fact that desi immigrants to America tend to be the educated class of their countries, and in post-Civil Rights America merit trumps racial discrimination to a significant extent.

But look at the global picture: the dark African continent and the dark Indian sub-continent are the two most impoverished regions on the planet. The next darkest region, ASEAN/south-east Asia, is the next most impoverished region on the planet. The striking exception in ASEAN being Singapore, which has a heavy majority of light-skinned chinese. Chinese confucian Singapore is followed distantly by muslim Malaysia, which has a very large chinese minority of around 30%. Is it racial discrimination that explains this phenomenon?

So, running to get that facial bleach or Fair and Lovely cream might not yield better results,

Desis do better because of education in science and math related field. I am sure the hypothesis would hold if you norm the study for education.

For instance, lighter skinned historically "upper-castes" are the ones more privileged in most South Asian societies

Except for the fact that there is no real correlation between light skin and caste. Punjabi Jatt Sudras are significantly lighter than the south indian brahmins who seem to dominate the IT immigrants to America. Anyone doubt that brahmins are among the very darkest people on earth?

"Contrary to my earlier beliefs, it seems that other people are able to distinguish between darker and lighter-skinned browns. "

-You do realize that this may be a subconcious activity right?

1) Correlation is not causality. It might be: earn more --> read more junk ---> spend more on fairness creams.

2) I think the more relevant construct is physical attractiveness (not controlled for in the study). In the past researchers have found that physical attractiveness (i) raises that person's own expectations of success, (ii) positively influences teacher's expectations about the student, (iii) helps in everyday social exchange, and (iv) generates favorable social perceptions.

After all Krishna was dark-skinned. And he had hordes of girlfriends (may be the flute made a difference). :)

I think Hersch has a misspecified model - he confounded skin color with attractiveness. There are many other features that give a person advantage.

3) About physical height:
Malcolm Gladwell reports in Blink that most Fortune 500 CEOs of America’s corporate world are tall:

"In the US population, about 14.5 per cent of all men are six feet or over. Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, that number is 58 per cent."

"Of the tens of millions of American men below 5'6", a grand total of ten--in my sample--have reached the level of CEO, which says that being short is probably as much, or more, of a handicap to corporate success as being a woman or an African-American."

Conclusion
Hersch's findings are not new. Both the findings - physical attractiveness (methinks that made the difference, not skin color) and physical height - are not something particular about immigrant populations. But the rhetorical strategy - i.e. positioning the paper in terms of discrimination - definitely helps in getting some media attention.

This happened to me just the other day...

Kush Tandon,

Do you understand how certain venues--online or not-- may attract a higher %-age of a certain demographic, and that SM is not sampling uniformly from the brown population? Go to Sulekha, for instance, and you will find a different (and less articulate) crowd. Also, nothing wrong with critiquing where you came from, especially when, like in the case of Nirad C. or Sasthi Brata, the critique is not "clueless". Even if it is, it can still be laudable if it manages to ruffle some bourgeois-nationalist (or for ABDs, bourgeois-ethnicist) feathers.

Well, if you hold everything else constant (like the researcher seems to do), you're likely to find some effect in the one independent variable. What's interesting is that it was such a clear and significant effect, though I agree that its unwise to conclude causation.

Holding so many elements constant and starting with a pool of just over 2,000 feels unsubstantial. I'm curious how many data points she had for each set of constants. If there were only 20 people in her groups of Bangladeshis with similar stats, I think its hard to really say anything -- even if the results are similar in 200 sets of 20.

But I haven't read the whole study, so lets give Hersch the benefit of the doubt and say her study captures a unique 'effect' of skin color (while one can assume the lighter subjects are generally better looking, this isn't suggested the study -- we should assume 'beauty' to yet another constant --- as per: "Bipasha is so hot... eventhough she's kinda dark")

I think Naina, Razib, et al had it right in that most cultures glorify lighter skin tones, usually because it indicates social status. But the skin tone test is quickly replaced where other indicators of status are available, e.g. caste, wealth, education, perhaps even beauty.

I wouldn't call this discrimination. I feel like the study assumes the conclusion. First, I don't think the N is large enough, especially since there are so many controls. Just skimmed the study: there are 81 Indians, 74 "East Asian, South Asian, Pacific" and the word Bangladeshi doesn't appear anywhere in the PDF. Then, even if she *is* correct about skin tone, discrimination requires something more than 'innate preference.'

Ok, she mentions in the conclusion that attractiveness might be reason for the result... and that light-skinned black folk might be smarter because of white ancestry ---- WHOAKAY! (to be fair, she says the 'vast weight' of genetic studies doesn't support such a position)

Anyway, I don't think the study is substantial enough to warrant much thought. Maybe it would have been more intersting if she compared across ethnicities? If she found that Indians were generally preferred to Jamaicans, but lighter Jamaicans were preferred to darker Indians... my brows would furrow.

Do you understand how certain venues--online or not-- may attract a higher %-age of a certain demographic, and that SM is not sampling uniformly from the brown population?

Yes, that is why I said "maybe higher" but not significantly higher. Sure, the sampling is definitely not uniform but 15,000 hits/ day has to closely resemble uniform.

A lot 1.5 or even 2.0 genners have seen their parents go through visa uncertainties/ green card process/ life of foreign graduate student, up close etc.

Anyway, Bauji, I am a village idiot from Sakuti Tanda (a small village in UP), and I need to work @ MIT AI labs, because I need some AI.

Also, this was just a tangential observation. Let's get back to the topic. Ta ta.

"Except for the fact that there is no real correlation between light skin and caste. Punjabi Jatt Sudras are significantly lighter than the south indian brahmins who seem to dominate the IT immigrants to America. Anyone doubt that brahmins are among the very darkest people on earth?"

Not really. If you were to fit tamil brahmins into South Asia's colour spectrum, most would fall somewhere from the middle-to-light end. Most are around the same colour as a regular guju.

And I know plenty of Punjabis who are darker than the average south indian brahmin. Of course, out of all the brahmins, the tamil ones (and malayalee) are probably the darkest, but definately not among the very darkest people on earth.

this study seems pretty stupid. doesn't it? i beleive it to an extent. i mean you guys've seen those studies that talk of attractive folks making more money than others by a significan percent.

i wonder if accent matter as well (the closest your accent to an american). maybe thats why...

I also wonder why Hersch used immigrants as her subjects, and not second, third, or fourth generation

But then, it's only a study of racism, so the subjects other attributes weren't measured so much of course. I mean the lack of controls is the same as not being able to tell one brown person from another. Better to stay mysterious, IMHO.

In certain IT jobs, accent do not matter. Your progress is based upon your ability to code. I guess skin color would also matter very little if you were a physician. However, desis that I have seen in upper management in fortune 500 companies generally tend to have caucasion characteristics. This study seems to be very discouraging to me cuz, I am goodlooking y'all...and still pretty much a 'failure.'

I am very puzzled by this study. Indians - the darkest of all model minorities - are the highest earners in the US according to the latest census, beating jewish people and the japanese. Also, a lot of these Indians who are fueling the IT industry both in the US and in India stem from South India (Bangalore, etc.).

The fact that this study failed to mention this fact, leads me to believe that study is flawed concerning 'skin colour' and discrimination.

Although I believe that attractiveness does play a heavy role in success, but that goes beyond skin colour. It includes your facial traits, the way you dress, the way you talk, your self-confidence.

fortune 500 companies generally tend to have caucasion characteristics

The average Indian has caucasoid features.

b) of the various indian ethnicites in the USofA the skin color model should predict that punjabis are the most affluent and south indians the least, with gujaratis in the middle. i don't know of any data for incomes and wealth across the various ethnic groups, but my own impression (i know fewer brownz than most here, so i am willing to be corrected) that the south indians are probably the most professional of the groups.

Based on personal experience, I would not be surprised if affluence increased in North Indian communities, and it would have nothing to do with skin color. Rather, it would have more to do with the fact that North Indian communities (Gujjus and Punjabis, in particular) are more likely to entrepeneurial than south indian communities, even if the data on professional qualifications might be similar.

There are a lot of factors contributing to success. In math and science related field, your knowledge is more easily quatifiable. Either you have it or your don't people are paid accordingly. This is where the color privelege probably does not apply, and you see Indians in higher salaried position. In fields where math and science knowledge isn't a premium (entertainment, Waste industry, Upper Management not associated with number crunching), skin color probably has a premium. Cisco, in earlier post I said caucasion characteristics, I meant 'white' or West European characteristics. By that I meant lighter skin colored, generally a sharper high bridge nose etc etc.

Just to second Naina's comments about folks being confusing indians irrespective of accent, skin color, length of time in USA, national origin, etc. The so-called study runs counter to my (considerable) experience in the US as a brown guy and the innumerably many times I have had to discreetly question non-brownz to figure out which desi-dude they are actually referring to ("ravi said he would be done today? Huh, you know I think that was vivek in the meeting with us").

Using the admittedly biased sample of the 2nd-tier leadership (and some first-tier as well) of the computer software sector in the US, one comes up with 20-30% desi and these are all seriously brown folks predominantly but not exclusively from the indian south. Maybe the technology sector is an outlier (no point having a light-skinned dude if he cant do the math!)?

Just a few samples:

Thomas Kurian @ Oracle
http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pressroom/html/tkurian.html

Desh Deshpande
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/deshpande.html

Guess fair is more aesthetically pleasing, just as a straight nose and high cheekbones would be. Incidentally Naina was fawning over a fair Kashmiri Bhatt guy (with chiselled features) in a previous posting, who was quite clearly a deviation from the average desi-male look. So how can we question discrimination on skin tone *if* its not motivated but is instead instinctive and a very human bent for the aesthetically refined

Cisco, in earlier post I said caucasion characteristics, I meant 'white' or West European characteristics. By that I meant lighter skin colored, generally a sharper high bridge nose etc etc.

I am curious about your statement that Indians who are in the Fortune 500 have 'caucasian features', as if they looked less like the average Indian. Who are you thinking really? Is Mittal too white for you? :)

If you are "failure" as you mention, it is not because you are dark-skinned or Indian and there is nothing you can do about it. You can and will, but the first step to success is not finding silly excuses to justify your shortcomings.

First of all, South Indian brahmins are certainly much fairer (and sharper featured) ON AVERAGE than other South Indians. Yes, exceptions exist and some are very dark (and some do not have sharp features). But ON AVERAGE you can clearly tell the difference. Many are more fair than the average non-brahmin northern Indian.

As for Jatts, it's not really accurate to call them 'sudras'. This was a label applied in the past by brahmins, khatris, etc. but it doesn't make any sense on the ground...Jatts are actually THE dominant group in Punjab, socially, economically, and politically. They also own most of the land. If anything, they tend to look down on brahmins, khatris, etc. (who are mostly involved in service-oriented occupations).

I'm sorry if my comments are feeding the troll, I don't want this thread to go off on a tangent.

Guess fair is more aesthetically pleasing

And that is why tanning booths and the sunscreen lotion market are going bankrupt... ;-)

First of all, South Indian brahmins are certainly much fairer (and sharper featured) ON AVERAGE than other South Indians

Not according to this article:

The South Indian Brahmins and Vaisyas who share dark skin with other lower castes named their organisations Arya Brahmin Samajam and Arya Vaisya Sangham.

At #41: I find it hard to take an article seriously that says things like the below:

It is a known fact that in economic terms the buffalo contributes more to the Indian milk economy than the cow. Why then does the buffalo remain a non-sacred and most invisible animal? Why did it not get constitutional protection as the cow did in the Directive Principles of State Policy? Simply because the cow belongs to the white race in the animal kingdom and the buffalo belongs to the black race. This is an Indian variety of racism. All white races constructed their colour as superior, the Indian Aryans also made the colour sacred. The colour black in general and dark people, buffaloes and other animals, irrespective of their utility or beauty were/are condemned both in social and spiritual realms.

By the way, pure Indian buffalo milk rocks! Too bad we can't get it here. That's a taste of India I do miss.

As for Jatts, it's not really accurate to call them 'sudras'. This was a label applied in the past by brahmins, khatris, etc. but it doesn't make any sense on the ground...Jatts are actually THE dominant group in Punjab, socially, economically, and politically

Doesn't matter. Most of the dominant agrarian castes throughout India have been classified as so-called shudras; as have many of the Hindu dynasties, e.g. the Mauryas and Marathas. You are confusing ritual status with economic (and now political) power. Of course if you called a group of Jatz 'shudras' you would probably get jumped. That's one of the ironies of the caste system; the "ground reality" is indeed very different from textual presentations, including traditional ones.

By the way, pure Indian buffalo milk rocks! Too bad we can't get it here. That's a taste of India I do miss.

Thank GOD they don't have bufallo milk here, 8 years of drinking that stuff wasn't all that pleasant. Thank God (or Cadbury) for bournvita.

I am curious about your statement that Indians who are in the Fortune 500 have 'caucasian features', as if they looked less like the average Indian. Who are you thinking really? Is Mittal too white for you? :)

If you are "failure" as you mention, it is not because you are dark-skinned or Indian and there is nothing you can do about it. You can and will, but the first step to success is not finding silly excuses to justify your shortcomings.

Mittal was CEO of his own company and did not have to depend on others to get promoted. As for my 'tounge in cheek' comment about being a failure...heck one man's failure is another man's success. I am not a governor of a state, or a CEO of a fortune 500, but earn a very comfortable 6 figure income in a midwest state. That would be success to many. Failure or success is very subjective. Type A personalities tend to be achievers in society's eyes but are never satisfied. Type B personalities do not achieve as much, but lead much more happier lives. I am a realist and have a good idea of general thinking patterns in desi and western society. I happen to percieve that there is a color privelege in both societies. You may see things differently, but that's your reality...true or not.

Fuck a caste system bullshit

:-)

Jatts outwarriored the so-called kashatriyias and the know enough about making dollars to be on par with any so-called vaisya, and we can get our scripture on like anybody else

Jatts outwarriored the so-called kashatriyias and the know enough about making dollars to be on par with any so-called vaisya, and we can get our scripture on like anybody else

Preach on sahej. Just to take this ridiculousness to the next level, I would like to mention that jatts have the sharpest noses in the subcontinent according to a study done on noses in colonial india :). The nasal index turned out to be 68.8 and the nose was defined as leptorrhine. :)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html

Tiggs,

If you want to have a serious conversation, I am more than willing to deconstruct the situation, and I have not resorted to any ridiculous phenotypic comparisions.

My point is actually that the caste system itself is ridiculous.

Punjabi Jatts are quite proud of their community, as they should be, as everyone should be. That is the one and only point being preached. I am not sure why you seem to be assuming that as a member of a community, we should "know our place" and act like we are subservient to any other group. As a group, Jatts, who are Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim, are not downtrodden or oppressed, and there is no reason we should accept being made to feel inferior implicitly or subtly as it may be

Hi there. My first time posting, though I've been reading for a couple days.

I haven't read this particular paper in too much detail, though I've read plenty of others like it. We seem to have econometricians and statisticians on board here at SM, in addition to lawyers and sociologists. These folk love to discuss this sort of stuff to death and still get nowhere (and for at least some of them, that is partly the point).

But please. Do the rest of us also need to go along? What is really new here? Should it surprize us that in a country with a population of 300 million, the well-entrenched color-prejudices of the native society also come to apply to the foreign born cohort of about 20-30 million when they attempt to integrate into the *free* labor market? The distinction between *free* and *specifically contracted* labor is critical here, in my view. The only reason to expect otherwise is when the color of the immigrant's skin is a positive discriminating factor in itself, such as in contracted labor situations, whether the H-1B at one end or the 'bracero' on the other. The fact that half the H-1Bs in any given year are from India, and most of them 'dark-skinned South Indians' only goes to prove the point, being that, when assured of minimum competence, an employer prefers a cheaper, compliant workforce, tied down till fired, even when of the 'wrong' color and 'nationality', to a free agent 'native' workforce of the 'right color'.

One could, of course, also ask whether the labor market is ever free anywhere at any time, and the expected negative answer then implies that discrimination based on non-work related factors is endemic to every real labor market, the only question is which factors are used to discriminate.

The desi spin on this is just the following - as there come to be significantly more of us in the US, (and there already are nearly 3 million of us, compared to just about 500K about two decades ago) our average labour market achievement will also likely converge toward the color-, age-, and education- normalized population average when we attempt to integrate into the free labor market. Yeah, this is a scary thought.

Sahej, you took my comment in a wrong way. I was calling the caste system riduculous, and my criticism was directed at calling jatts, shudras....

Sorry man :-)

shaydh bara vajhay hoa see

I just wanted to tie this with the other superficial thread on noses where there was an implicit assumption that a sharper nose was associated with higher standing in society. Based on that hypothesis, Jats/Jatts supposedly have the sharpest nose in the subcontinent so they should be at top of the caste classification heap. I was just illustrating the ridiculousness of the caste system by being ridiculous myself. Changa?

bilkul

The fact that half the H-1Bs in any given year are from India, and most of them 'dark-skinned South Indians' only goes to prove the point, being that, when assured of minimum competence, an employer prefers a cheaper, compliant workforce, tied down till fired, even when of the 'wrong' color and 'nationality', to a free agent 'native' workforce of the 'right color'.

Except that it doesn't explain why Indian-Americans (as opposed to Indians who come with H-1Bs) are the highest earners in the US. Which, no matter how many shades of brown you guys claim to see, is still darker than jewish and japanese people. So, the report is flawed, and I suspect it is the usual "correlation is not causality" kind of fallacy.

Except that it doesn't explain why Indian-Americans (as opposed to Indians who come with H-1Bs) are the highest earners in the US. Which, no matter how many shades of brown you guys claim to see, is still darker than jewish and japanese people. So, the report is flawed, and I suspect it is the usual "correlation is not causality" kind of fallacy.

I bet Indians in the US also have the highest education levels, and are represented in careers normally associated with high income. Perhaps if you compare indians with other lighter skinned people with similar education and proficency levels, you may see a bias.

One more point. An issue relevant to discrimination in general and employment discrimination in particular that is rarely brought up is the following: discrimination *within* an ethnic or racialized group. That is, how do *desi* bosses and colleagues treat each other and their subordinates, and how do they react to applicant pools with lots of other desis, some of whom are taller (shorter), fairer (darker), co- (or other-) religonists, co- (or other-) linguals, etc. How do desi professors grade their students? Do desi professors prefer 'from the desh('FOB')' graduate students over equivalently qualified native-born whites, non-whites and 'ABCDs'?

Really, this is an issue that gets shoved under the rug a lot. As ethnics, (even if as yet not fully racialized) desis (whether 'ABCDs' or 'FOBs') tend to encounter each other a lot more often than they encounter non-desis. This is only likely to increase in the future. While the sub-ethnic breakdown in the desi immigrant population has not yet approached the overall South Asian breakdown, and is unlikely to do so barring a major change in entry criteria and numbers, I still see desis in America dealing with each other through home-country stereotypes - i.e., Punjabis vs Bengalis vs Tamilians vs Gujaratis! Does this really not feed into employment or credentialing related decisions that desi bosses or professors make? Does the preference for 'tall, fair' matches so evident in 'matrimonials' magically disappear from the employment context? I don't think it does, this would require a super-human effort. What then? What if it turns out that the major perpetrators of discrimination against (or in favor of) desis are desis themselves?

As for Jatts, it's not really accurate to call them 'sudras'. This was a label applied in the past by brahmins, khatris, etc. but it doesn't make any sense on the ground...Jatts are actually THE dominant group in Punjab, socially, economically, and politically. They also own most of the land. If anything, they tend to look down on brahmins, khatris, etc. (who are mostly involved in service-oriented occupations).

So genius, do explain how the erstwhile sudras the Jatts became non-sudras by dominating the brahmins "socially, economically, and politically"? Are punjabi brahmins the new sudras just because the old sudras the Jatts "look down" on them?

We were discussing hindu casteism and its supposed equation to colorism (which is BS perpetuated by many posters here including the one I was responding to). Based on hindu/brahminical casteism, Jatts belong to the lowest caste. Only the outcastes/Dalits/Untouchables are lower than them. The current political ground reality does not change that fact.

Now since the Jatts have the "sharpest features" as shown by another poster, and since they are "fairer" (based on the low threshold for fairness among indians) than the typical brahmin from north or south or east India, doesn't that make the oft-repeated equation lighter skin = higher caste a falsehood?

Its only the servile desire to pander to their white masters that makes so many desis flatter them with this nonsense. This desire to endear themselves to non-indians at the expense of indians comes from stupidity and spinelessness. For desis condemn themselves to a low status by playing this silly game, since the great majority of non-desis are lighter-skinned than themselves.

Guess fair is more aesthetically pleasing

Not necessarily. Else white-skinned, whitish-blond haired, blue eyed albinos would be in great demand in India:

http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/633/albinosw_s_.jpg

And Africa:

http://www.aokeh.com/images/albino%20african.jpg

Many whites, including the affluent class, have a fetish for women from east and south-east Asia. Its neither fairness nor "sharp features" that attracts them in these cases. The current Indian fetish for fairness and "sharp features" comes from centuries of slavery at the hands of such foreigners. Statues from ancient India and depictions of the heros and heroines from the Puranas reveal a completely different standard of beauty.

Similarly, a study was published last year showing hiring preference for lighter skinned black Americans.

Paper bag test anybody?

Jatts are actually THE dominant group in Punjab, socially, economically, and politically. They also own most of the land. If anything, they tend to look down on brahmins, khatris, etc.

Jaats are descended from hunnic tribes who invaded India in the early centuries after AD. The Hindu caste structure relegates such to Mlecchas or Sudras. The Rajputs, excluded, most other such communities with a pedigree amongst the invading Hunnic tribes are lower-castes

"Jaats are descended from hunnic tribes who invaded India in the early centuries after AD. The Hindu caste structure relegates such to Mlecchas or Sudras. The Rajputs, excluded, most other such communities with a pedigree amongst the invading Hunnic tribes are lower-castes"

here's an interesting wikipedia link relating to that

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Ancestry_of_Jatt_Names[/url]

Bauji, I am a village idiot from Sakuti Tanda (a small village in UP),

Where exactly is that? Western or Eastern UP? Are there any big cities close to it?

The Rajputs, excluded, most other such communities with a pedigree amongst the invading Hunnic tribes are lower-castes

That's a little confusing the way you wrote that...I think what you meant was 'other than Rajputs, most other such communities etc etc.'

Also, I think 'scythian' is probably more accurate than 'hunnic'.

But it does address my point about the word 'sudra' when applied to these people...in the centuries after Alexander but before Islam, there were many migrations/invasions of various Central Asian groups (mostly Iranian/Scythian in type) into India. These people became Hinduised/Buddhified (essentially 'Indianised'), but they were difficult to fit into the earlier Hindu caste system. They were relegated to 'sudra' status by the brahmins, but it is doubtful that the label ever bothered them or was taken too seriously, since they were now the powerful groups in the region. What a bunch of powerless brahmins decided to call them had limited impact I'm sure. For that matter the British were also considered 'sudra', for all the difference it made.

Of course, the brahmins were not TOTALLY powerless...they excelled at penetrating into people's ritual lives, and exerted their subversive influences that way...

Interesting premise, but I think the focus on skin color is sort of barking up the wrong tree, when looking for physical attributes of success.

There have been several studies attributing higher levels of earning, interview success, etc. to height. The taller person always wins, and not just at basketball tryouts. This is a totally anecdotal and non-scientific observation on my part, but North Indian desis are, on the average, fairer than their counterparts, but they are not generally significantly taller than their counterparts. So when you norm the entire group for height, I think the earnings sort of average out, so that darker people are doing just as well (if not better) than lighter people.

I do think that Caucasians generally do not distinguish desi individuals based on their various shades of brown. It's not because they're inherently unable to tell the difference. It's just not the normal mode used to distinguish people in their minds. People are distinguished by hair color, eye color, etc...and since most people of South Asian origin have similar hair and eye color, you end up with that age-old problem of "all you people look the same."

Of course, the brahmins were not TOTALLY powerless...they excelled at penetrating into people's ritual lives, and exerted their subversive influences that way...

Whoever had stregnth to take the land in Hindustan became king - and the power relations and hierarchy were organized around the king, not the Brahmins, whatever wishful thinking they may have put forth in their dharmasastras. Patrick Olivelle - a Sri Lankan who is considered one of the foremost western scholars of the Upanishads, early Indian asceticism and the dharmasastras, said that the bigoted Manusmriti was a reaction to Maurya (non-Ksatriya rule), and doubts very much that it was enforced. Brahmins often assigned Ksatriya status (in an act of ritual fiction) to certain royal houses, to legitimize their lineage. As for the original Ksatriyas, there is no evidence that those clans survive today; their blood has been relegated to oblivion. There have been Brahmin kings as well.

Even in the ritual sphere, Brahmin influence shouldn't be exaggerated. Very many temples in India are run by non-Brahmins; most of the South Indian bhakti sants were so-called sudras, including 47/63 Nayanmars (the Shaivite mystics and devotees) etc. And there were and are constant spiritual challenges to brahmanic orthopraxy as well, sometimes in the same neighborhood. For example, Madhva's Dvaita Vedanta is orthoprax in that it recognizes the special status of Brahmins; but the Virashaiva (Lingayat movement) which is more popular in Karnataka, rejected caste - and the authority of Brahmins - outright.

Paper bag test anybody?

As for the whole "why are Indians, who are darker, doing better economically"... perhaps this should be compared within industry, controlling for SES and education? I haven't taken a close enough look at the study, but I seriously doubt that, when broken down, the parts are the same as the aggregate.

Lets just not indulge in this skin color and caste nonsense, if we never mention it again, fail to imbed it in our kids heads, then it will die. As it is it is a load of bullshit. I cant wait for the day when I meet a South Asians and they don’t evaluate me on my skin color, accent and surname.

As for the original Ksatriyas, there is no evidence that those clans survive today; their blood has been relegated to oblivion

I'm not sure that's true; the khatris are probably at least partially their descendants.

the Virashaiva (Lingayat movement) which is more popular in Karnataka, rejected caste - and the authority of Brahmins - outright.

This was a fascinating movement.

risible - thanks for the Patrick Olivelle reference.

Where exactly is that? Western or Eastern UP? Are there any big cities close to it?

Western UP.

Big cities close by would be Meerut, Muzaffarnagar.

They were relegated to 'sudra' status by the brahmins, but it is doubtful that the label ever bothered them or was taken too seriously, since they were now the powerful groups in the region

The label is indeed taken seriously. For instance the Jats, Ahirs were not very happy by being left out of the SC/ST category by the constitution. The immense pressure on their leadership is why the Centre recently created the new OBC quota to accommodate their aspirations alongside other recognized sudra castes who have existing reservations

"I do think that Caucasians generally do not distinguish desi individuals based on their various shades of brown. "

Would Freddie Mercury have been as successful had his skin been as dark as an average indian?

He became a star in England at a time when racism against "pakis" in England was widespread..

Advice to people, if you say anything bad about Jatts, be ready to defend youself. I had to learn that the hard way.

Advice to people, if you say anything bad about Jatts, be ready to defend youself. I had to learn that the hard way.

You only have to defend yourself if each and every one of your posts is about how horrible jatts/punjabis are.

The major difference between Jaat/Jatts and Rajput is that the rajputs acknowledged Brahmins high standing in the caste system, and were themselves rewarded with high standing in the caste hierarchy. The Jatts did not, and were in turn classified lower. The jatts and rajputs are essentially the same people ethnically and share quite a few 'last names' or gotras if you will (Rana, Solanki, Tomar, Pawar etc etc). Despite the close affinity, there are many customs that are totally different in the two communities. The Jatts always allowed widow remarriage while the rajputs did not is the one that readily comes to mind. There has been animosity between Jatts and Brahmins from historical times.

There is no mention of Jatts/Jaats or Rajput in Indian history prior to 2nd or 3rd century AD. Both appeared on the indian historical scene together. The Jatts in punjab majorly converted to sikhism to get away from caste bullshit. The hindus started following Arya Samaj which does away with idolworship, and has minimal ritualistic ceremonies. Many Hindu Jats villages did not even have a temple in an effort to minimize brahamanic intrusion.

Would Freddie Mercury have been as successful had his skin been as dark as an average indian?

I don't know about that. I suspect the name change from Farokh Balsara to Freddie Mercury helped a lot...probably more than the lighter skin tone.

Anyway, my point wasn't that Caucasians do not make distinctions between white people and non-white people. My point was that they don't distinguish between various shades of brown...so they wouldn't describe desi person A as light-skinned, while describing desi person B as dark-skinned.

Only tangential to this discussion, but this made me remember an an incident at a restaurant. We were waiting for another Indian friend to join us, and I told the waiter to let her know where we were sitting when she showed up, and by way of identification, I added that the person we were waiting for was Indian. The waiter was outraged and told me point blank "you don't have to tell me that, I'm not racially profiling you."

Sonia Kaur I did not badmouth Punjabi/Jatts. Why because I am one.

My only problem is with this whole jatt thing is. My family is of sikh background I have been told that there is no such thing as caste in sikhism.

That why have never been a big fan of the term Jatt Sikh. Being a sikh one should reject the caste system. Not that long ago I get into a heated agrument with someone over this issue.

But one I hear storys about sikh not getting along with other sikhs just cause they are not the same caste bother me alot.

Also my sister is getting married to someone who is not a sikh, but he has chosen to convert to sikhism. Yet that is not good enough for some of my relatives who won't accept my sister marriage because he is a not a jatt.

Is it crazy to suggest that if the earliest human migrants that ventured into the Northern parts of Asia and Europe had simply supplemented their diet with Vitamin D enriched foods, that they would have saved the world from the curse of colourism that has plagued mankind for centuries?

There's something more to colorism (which almost always places lights above darks) than meets the eye. Could it be that the lighties deprived of their melanin and living in the cold wilderness had to develop a psychological ideology that would place themselves above darkies to justify their conquering of them and their most often desirable territory...something along the lines of Iceman Inheritence or Diop's two cradle theory.

Something as pervasive as colorism has to have an interesting background to its development in human history

Just my thoughts

Lets just not indulge in this skin color and caste nonsense, if we never mention it again, fail to imbed it in our kids heads, then it will die. As it is it is a load of bullshit. I cant wait for the day when I meet a South Asians and they don’t evaluate me on my skin color, accent and surname.

Yeah, me too. But I think we'll both be waiting a long time. I think discrimination based on skin color(or for that matter discrimination based on any visible markers of difference) is an innately human behavior. It takes a lot of conscious effort to see beyond the visible marker at an individual level. This requires training, sensitization, consciousness raising, and it has to happen all the time, in every generation. Although one makes distinctions precisely because one is human, it is also because one is human that one can become aware that one is doing so, and learn not to base significant decisions on these markers. People who claim they are not racists are often being not so much dishonest as ignorant of their own psychological processes.

They were relegated to 'sudra' status by the brahmins, but it is doubtful that the label ever bothered them or was taken too seriously

Being consigned to the lowest caste would bother anyone. You are thinking wishfully.

the British were also considered 'sudra', for all the difference it made.

Hogwash. The British, who saw the brahmins as an inferior breed, weren't hindus; so assigning a hindu caste to them is ridiculous. They would be considered mlecchas, not sudras.

Hogwash. The British, who saw the brahmins as an inferior breed, weren't hindus; so assigning a hindu caste to them is ridiculous. They would be considered mlecchas, not sudras.

Yeah, you're right, that's an important distinction, I agree. But still, the word 'sudra' has connotations of a downtrodden, oppressed, servile, timid people, who revere brahmins and other upper castes, and accept the brahmins' superiority...and that's why it's comical to consider some of these groups like Jatts as sudras. They did use brahmins for some of their rituals (true even of Muslim Jatts in the past) but did not view them as superior to themselves. Sikhism further eroded the role and status of brahmins in the region.

Advice to people, if you say anything bad about Jatts, be ready to defend youself. I had to learn that the hard way.

You don't need to say anything *bad* to need to defend yourselves if you've lived in Gurgaon ;)

It takes a lot of conscious effort to see beyond the visible marker at an individual level. This requires training, sensitization, consciousness raising, and it has to happen all the time, in every generation....People who claim they are not racists are often being not so much dishonest as ignorant of their own psychological processes.

First of all, it would be useful to define what is racism. If it is uncounciously/conciously acknowledging that you are of a different race/culture/ethnic group based on your visible markers, then yes, we all do it and I see little point in pretending otherwise. We also stereotype based on our limited experiences.

However, in my opinion, there is a big distinction between acknowledging that you are different and being disrespectful. And there is no excuse for the latter.

Now since the Jatts have the "sharpest features" as shown by another poster, and since they are "fairer" (based on the low threshold for fairness among indians) than the typical brahmin from north or south or east India, doesn't that make the oft-repeated equation lighter skin = higher caste a falsehood?

Great post, Doordarshan. It is a falsehood that undermines our people, history and achievements. This myth was used by our ex-colonial masters to divide and conquer, to justify their presence in India (new white invaders), and worse, to say that people of colour where incapable of creating a great civilization.

It is a myth you see, because there is little or no evidence of the Aryan invasion, or that they created the caste system to seperate themselves from the dravidian societies. All Indian epics supposedly written by the aryan invaders tell no stories beyond the borders of the Indus region.

Indian skin colour differs a lot, and that happens even among siblings and family members. It is lie to say that you can figure the caste by skin colour.

Kush: Are you from an actual village? Whats the name of the village?

Kush: Are you from an actual village? Whats the name of the village?

ALM,

No, The name of the village is Sakuti Tanda. I have travelled villages, attended weddings and functions there as a young bloke, and have done some field work in villages in Rajasthan.

I just like the name Sakuti Tanda, just like Jhumritalya. It is on the route from Delhi to Roorkee, if you take a car/ taxi.

My grandparents, and parents have spent most of their lives in near Agra, Allahabad, Kanpur, Roorkee (mostly in Roorkee which is a rarity in India, an essentially a campus town, and with one of the prettiest campus in India), and some US too.

My grandparents, and parents have spent most of their lives in near Agra, Allahabad, Kanpur, Roorkee

Except for Roorkee, the rest of the towns are in Eastern UP though you consider yourself to be from Western UP?

I am just blown away at the small number of people from UP which has a population of 200 million plus. Western UP in population is probably comprarable to Andhra Pradesh and you will hardly see anyone from Western UP.

Kush ji, am glad to see another Gaon-wallah here :).

i too am a gaon-wali from a humble pind near Amritsar :)).

Except for Roorkee, the rest of the towns are in Eastern UP though you consider yourself to be from Western UP?

Technically, Roorkee is now Uttranchal (from last six-seven years or so). DehraDun is the capital of Uttranchal.

I do consider Roorkee as my hometown.......because my early years were in Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and mostly Roorkee. My parents live there.

Eastern UP has traditionally been more hub of culture and activity.

I just like the name Sakuti Tanda, just like Jhumritalya. It is on the route from Delhi to Roorkee, if you take a car/ taxi.

Clueless wrote:

My family is of sikh background I have been told that there is no such thing as caste in sikhism. Also my sister is getting married to someone who is not a sikh, but he has chosen to convert to sikhism. Yet that is not good enough for some of my relatives who won't accept my sister marriage because he is a not a jatt.

I had a (religious) girlfriend like this back in the Phoenix area (where there are many white Sikh converts). But she said that she would not go out w/ those guys b/c her family wanted her to see Punjabi Sikhs only (like them). It came down to culture, NOT just religion in her case.

One time in my midwestern middle school days, I got mistaken for probably the only other person that wasn't white. I corrected him, and he didn't care. So the next day I called him Steven or somesuch name, and he went to correct me, so I commented that all white people look the same to me.
Ah, sweet revenge!

You have so many comments that I didn't read through them. I live in India but have lived abroad for short periods of time. I think white people are very conscious of skin colour. They know that the colour differences between a really white person from Sweden for example and a darker one from say Italy. They call these people 'fair' and 'dark'. For them 'dark' means white actually. All Mills and Boon heroines prefer a tall dark handsome hero...meaning white, not brown.
They think of the really dark people (brown) as just brown. That's because they don't care to know the difference.

im brown desi and i guess america favors hard work over skin color and whoever wants to work hard will succeed which is better than how other countries favor skin color for progression.

The major difference between Jaat/Jatts and Rajput is that the rajputs acknowledged Brahmins high standing in the caste system, and were themselves rewarded with high standing in the caste hierarchy. The Jatts did not, and were in turn classified lower.

Rajputs are ksyatriyas right? Ksyatriyas were alwasy classified lower, at least if you read the Indian ancient and classic shastras.

1. Brahmin
2. Ksyatriya
3. Vaisha
4. Shudra

Do Jatts stem from a ksyatriya background or either of the remaining two listed above?

Vaishas and shudras are considered lower than the higher two listed.

The major difference between Jaat/Jatts and Rajput is that the rajputs acknowledged Brahmins high standing in the caste system, and were themselves rewarded with high standing in the caste hierarchy. The Jatts did not, and were in turn classified lower.

Rajputs are ksyatriyas right? Ksyatriyas were alwasy classified HIGHER, at least if you read the Indian ancient and classic shastras.

1. Brahmin
2. Ksyatriya
3. Vaisha
4. Shudra

Do Jatts stem from a ksyatriya background or either of the remaining two listed above?

Vaishas and shudras are considered lower than the higher two listed.

CORRECTION; Meant to say that ksyatriyas were always considered HIGHER, as in high caste, not lower.

Rangla Punjab answers thine questions good lady

Apparently, the answer can also be found overseas

A third answer from Gurdas Maan, who says, 'manja utha beta jat, bania oh nawab hove, apna punjab hove

Sepia Mutiny : Mutual masturbation of fucked up ABCDs. Its amusing to see you complaining of racial profiling when you ABCDs do it all the time - to other brown skinned people! I guess your most prized dream is to be confused for a white girl someday. Perhaps you can start by bleaching your skin white. This entire site reeks of ABCD ignorance.

Dude I just linked to a song called Apna Punjab, all about pardesis longing for the desh......

I think the study also suggests that taller people earned more, as well. The study quantified for education, but not quality, which albeit is hard to do, but does raise a question about the strength of the findings. The earnings were self-reported, so that's a flaw as well.

Folks,

The Jatts are not Sudras. They have never accepted the Hindu cultural designation. Jatts are descendents of Scythic origins. Based on genotype the Jatts and Khatris are close to each other. Prior to the Muslim invasions there were many other invasions by migrating tribes through the Khyber Pass.

Brahmins gave the title of Khatri and later in the 10th century Rajput, to those who accepted Brahminical rites. Majority of Jats are Muslim and Sikh. Hindu Jats have rejected Brahminism and have taken hold of Arya Samaj.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/common_origin_croats_serbs_jats.php
http://prabhu.50g.com/sakas/iscyth_history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kambojas
http://www.iras.ucalgary.ca/~volk/sylvia/Kurgans.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythian
http://ossetians.com/eng/news.php?newsid=27&f=3&PHPSESSID=972db5bdc12ef0a97e9ca2098050629b

Sycth_Jat

The Jatts are not Sudras. They have never accepted the Hindu cultural designation. Jatts are descendents of Scythic origins. Based on genotype the Jatts and Khatris are close to each other. Prior to the Muslim invasions there were many other invasions by migrating tribes through the Khyber Pass.......Majority of Jats are Muslim and Sikh. Hindu Jats have rejected Brahminism and have taken hold of Arya Samaj

I am guessing you are a Jatt, probably a pakistani punjabi muslim or an indian (khalistani?) sikh, who is ashamed of the low caste origin of Jatts because it does not jibe with your imagined racial superiority over the masses of desis from points east and south of punjab. Am I right or what? You can be as delusional as you wish Jes, but it wont change the facts will it? Punjabi Jatts were/are low caste sudras. Deal with it.

Your post is full of ignorance and irrationalities. Did your supposedly "scythian" ancestors invade or migrate? How could "racially superior" and "martial" invading conquerors from central asia get assigned the servant caste status in the land they conquered?? What caste were the muslim, sikh and arya samaj jatts before they converted, if not low caste sudras???

Like many other macaulayite fools, including many of the brahmins you hate for assigning your people the lowest caste, you have fallen for the mischievous white lie of color/phenotype = caste. God gave you a brain. Use it. If color and phenotype is the basis for hindu caste why are brahmins darker and less "scythian" looking than punjabi jatts, who in turn are darker and less "scythian" looking than pathans, and so on?

OTOH, I agree with your contempt for brahminism which has been a disaster for India.

Hello everyone,

so, before we start let's clear things up from the beginning: I'm a jatt sikh. Now, where should i begin? Racial supremecy? Castes? Where in th world did the concept that Jatt's are sudra's come into affect? If one is to take into consideration hindu vedas, etc. which dictate that the origing of the caste's is from god's face (bhraman's), thighs (kshatriya), and arms(vaishya's), wherein the sudra's were born from god's feet. Now, if you look into each of these castes, you will find subcastes. Regardless, when you look into the origin of Jatt's according to hindu texts (that are the basis for castes), you will find that Jatt's are said to have literally come from the locks of Shiva's hair. That is the literal historic (can we call it history, or is it mythology?) definition of the word Jatt itself. So then, how does being born from the hair of Shiva equate to being sudra (which are born from his leg's/feet)? Nonsense, i tell you.

Now, as for the racial background of Sikhs, this is very much debated. Traditionally sources had dictated that they are scythians, however scythians come in a variety of subcastes. We know that they (as are many non-jatts) classified as aryans. But, next comes the question - where did these aryan's come from??? Well...this is again up to debate. Many jatt's can trace their ancestory towards iran, while others trace it to afghanistan. Then there is a third group, which traces their ancestory to the likes of Germany. These are generally the ones with surnames unique to themselves, the German's, and the Irish/Scottish. Examples - the Hayer's/Haer's (Jatt Sikhs, Germans, Irish, Scotts), Mann's (Jatt sikh, German), Bains (again, jatt sikh and german) and Hans (Jatt sikh, German and Swedish).

Now, why are they different? Why do they look down upon the other castes, as someone has pointed? Well, ignoring the fact that i myself haven't experienced any of this, i can say that they think very highly of themselves. This is due to a variety of factors, which can be summarized in the word: lineage. Jatt's have traditionally forbidden intermarrage between different castes, and this is due to a certain pride in the retaining of their culture and their sense of superiority. Why might they feel different towards the bhramans and other hindus? Because of the fact that a vast majority of them have interbred with dravidians before the concept of castes had been institutionalized. If not, then it is also simply because of the lack of control over horemones which results in the formation of these socalled middle castes. Bhramans, on the other hand, have opted to retain an image of pure aryans, however upon checking their DNA, one will find that they have some mixing of mongolian and dravidian blood in them - however, this is really quite minimal.

So, what are the jatts? Simply put, they were often allowed the position of rajput or kshatriya, and despite the common ethnic backgrounds, etc...they opted to remain as jatts and are scrutinized for doing as such. This choice was more probably due to differences in the ideals of jatts and the rajputs.

phew. rant over.

marriage*

Hello all,

i just wanted to post my experience n thoughts...

The hardest part of my experience being an Indian girl growing up in the US was the awareness as a teenager of being different (and thus feeling different) and not a welcome difference at that age and even still now sometimes. I feel so completely and overwhelmingly different from Americans of European descent in the sense of having different skin and cultural heritage..

Unfortunately, when I was young and still now, shame attaches to the difference because of my insecure mind, plus sometimes I feel anger at being born Indian, in the wrong place (America) where I didn't necessarily fit in at all...

More deeply, I feel the issue lies with wanting to be a part of the majority and also of wanting to belong. When everyone around you is principally white and you are not, you feel different and left out. This feeling is part of being in a minority and I just hated it!! I believe all people naturally WANT to be part of the crowd, part of the majority. As it happens, in Europe and America, the majority (in number and power) are of European descent..making these places suck in some ways for anyone not the same.

I feel bitter and sad at times not to be one of them because I feel a disadvantage in some ways in America...

My fantasy is if I had been raised in India, I might never have had to struggle this much with self worth around my skin color, but that may just be a fantasy. For example, my boyfriend is a native Indian, he has darker skin and he apparently struggled to accept his skin color..

In the end, skin color really doesn't matter of course...spiritually and morally.

For some reason, however, still if I walk into a room full of white people only, I instinctively feel different. I feel very transparent, and I dislike the feeling. I have left places and events because of this.

Lately, as I get older, mostly I want the feeling of being around people like me...whether that is culturally, or people who share my interests..Birds of a feather flock together...

Mostly, it is self-esteem that I was lacking and still am a little...

Thanks!

And that is why tanning booths and the sunscreen lotion market are going bankrupt... ;-)

Actually research has pale brown skin is more attractive than pale white or dark
http://www.physorg.com/news78679968.html

Many considered using blacks in advertisements to appeal to a growing black target audience but were concerned that use of blacks might alienate white consumers. Fortunately for advertisers and advertising agencies, research shows that white consumers react to black models in advertisements in almost exactly the same way as black consumers react. It seems that both groups prefer the light brown skin tone, whether it's a tan Caucasian or a light-skinned African American."

So people of indian origin have brown skin are at an advantage

I haven't got the article at hand, but the average man without any flaws is the most attractive. That is why most people find persons of mixed race so attractive.

Ya know, its sad, I won't deny that I'm about as "white" as is possible for an american to be. But the fact is that I continually meet people every single day who discriminate on this basis. They do it from the smallest thoughts to the words they use. They seem to be totally convinced that a simplistic label based on the color of someone's skin is the defining part of that person. Most of these people disgust me to no end but they make up the vast majority of people I encounter every day.

Whats really strange is on some level I can empathize with many of you. I've lived in Northern NJ most of my life and if there is anywhere there is a huge racially mixed bag in the US, this is it. I go to the Mall and am usually the only blonde person I see. Doesn't bother me, I think of it as "normal". I went and visited Minnesota a couple years back and had to go to a Mall there, everyone was BLONDE!!! in fact it was so noticeable that I felt distinctly unconfortable. The complete lack of the multi shades of people I've become accustomed to was gone, mind you that was just my perception. What it would be like to be on the end of racial epiteths on top of that would have probably had me highly angry and fearful at the same time. So I can empathize to some extent, but I can't walk in your shoes. Just know that there are many of us out there who enjoy mixed company more and do not associate with those for whom bigotry is a way of life.

Javeeh Kan - I don't think there is anything to a melatonin level argument. However, if you want to argue about technology being the indication of advanced society then yes, I'd say you are heading in the right direction. My opinion on this? Europeans had the guns, Asians and African's didn't. Pretty much one side had a bigger stick hence they got to make the rules. Stupid? yes, ignorant? yes, in keeping with the times and education of the people? yes. Something to be proud of? no.
Chachaji, nice comments and your right about the raising of consciousness being key to not passing this on from generation to generation. I also think that education level has more to do with people acceptance of differences than not. Unfortunately the vast majority of the US (and probably "white" bah lets face it, european descent) is highly undereducated.

Looking at the religious comments, its funny, I think every single culture out there has quite a bit of growing to do in this area. Multiculturalism is going to grow and we all must learn to deal with our past history and move beyond artificial segregations. We'll get there, but probably not for another 5 or 6 generations at the very least.

Pri, skin color is only one way to feel "left out", I think everyone has those issues of one type or another whether its, too short, too smart, too fat, too skinny. I almost think we go out of our way to find these things to differentiate ourselves from those around us and then eventually obsessing over them in an unhealthy manner. Don't forget that there are some people who just always seem to be left out cause they are just "too weird".

As for what Samir said, I tend to agree with the statement about what is most attractive, but then that is only my opinion.(as is everything I write here)

Anyway this has been a fun diversion, I'm one of those who loves just debating these issues for the sake of debating them. I know I won't change the world, but as long as I can make someone think a bit more I'm happy :D

P.S. I came across this site looking for more information about Ms. Sabbithi and what is being done about her human rights. I ended up seeing this post and knowing that its something of a hot potato decided to take a gander at it. I'm glad I did, I don't see the usual self-righteous anger rants what I see instead is a calm collected and rational conversation. So I'm glad to have stopped in here.

jats have sharpest nose in india
having nasal index 63.1
refer wikipedia origin of jats article

i m lower caste in the hierarchy, but i can challenge very few people in india will be fairer than me, there is no inter caste marriage between my parents. my relatives are also fair

here is mention of Jats in Deva Samhit� [207] in the form of powerful rulers over vast plains of Central Asia. When P�rvatī asks Shiva about the origin of Jats, their antiquity and characters of Jats, Shiva tells her like this in Sanskrit shloka-15 as under:

महाबला महावीर�या, महासत�य पराक�रमाः Mah�bal� mah�vīry�, Mah�satya par�kram�ḥ

सर�वाग�रे क�षत�रिया जट�‌टा देवकल��पा दृढ़-व�रता: Sarv�gre kshatriy� jatt� Devakalp� dridh-vrat�ḥ || 15 ||

Meaning - "They are symbol of sacrifice, bravery and industry. They are, like gods, firm of determination and of all the kshatriy�, the Jats are the prime rulers of the earth."

BUT, caste is retarted. You are either hot or not. You fat kids won't understand that though. But whoever mentioned that nasal index shit, good job lol. Big nosed brahmins breathing in all the Jat man's air lol

Indians who discuss here should be careful in making comments because there are many anti-indians, foreign nationals who routinely pass off as "indians" posing themselves with Indian names. They never seem to get off our back..yea gods

My parents are running about trying to find me a "fair" bride from pakistan. Their notion of extraordinarily beautiful potential (aren't they all ?) is someone as fair as possible. I told my mom we are in Canada, every other girl is extraordinarily beautiful here (white girls), she looked at me with disapproving looks. Don't matter, I'm running away from home in 2 weeks and plan to be completely estranged from this brown hypocrisy forever. I'm excited as hell.

South Asians are not the only one obsessed with color of the skin. Latin American and African Americans in US are too......Read this article from NY times on the fairness cream market in United States:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/health/16skin.html?hp

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SKIN YOUR BORN WITH??