--- jose colaco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately dear Prof, this average Joe is not as brilliant as to Read > "anti-white" > "anti-white" "anti-white" from George Pinto ....and NOT to See Through > George's > basic racial bias. If you want ordinary (like moi) human beings to read > objectively, I suggest that you even handedly OPPOSE the Power Structures on > principle
Jose, using your absurd logic one can assume you are anti-Indian since you frequently complain about a number of things Indian. Yet, it is particular issues you are complaining about and could not be against the whole class of Indians, any more than I can be against a whole class of whites, anti-white as you say. If you do not see the absurdity of your view, I have not further to add. Take comfort if you feel you are right. If you feel better that you are without racial bias and I am, then more power to you. Your thought process here is similar to what the right-wing Catholic fundamentalists do - any challenge is deemed anti-Catholic with a broad stroke without looking at the underlying facts. > actions, and ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT reference to their skin colour. Leave that > to the Casteists who disciminate against the dalits. I cannot bring you out of the cave. If you believe race and skin color have no bearing on power structures today, please continue to live in fairyland. I realize race and color is not the only issue and other factors play a role. However, the next time you attend a NAACP conference tell the speakers that there is no race issue today and they have it all wrong. Say the same thing at the American (native) Indian conferences. > You did the very same thing wrt Bride and Prejudice. And yet, I wonder HOW > many Indian Movies you have seen in the past decade....or two.....or > three.....or four!. Object all you want, to policies and actions - but when > you bring in "colour" .... you are bringing in Colour..... aka Varna in > Sanskrit. The responses by you, Viviana, and Cecil were uncharacteristically poor to my post. If you recall none of you challenged my view that USA soaps have for years shown white men romancing non-white women but not non-white men with white women. Just a coincidence? Are you also denying that most Indian films have lighter-skinned heroes & villains as dark-skinned. I grew up watching a number of Tamil & Indian films (MGR, Shivaji Ganeshan, Raj Kapoor, all light skinned heroes, etc.). I am shocked to see the trend continue today, although I admit there are exceptions. The other point I made was regarding the hybrid movies (India/West combine and not India alone). The 'lover' in 'Bride and Prejudice' and 'Bend it Like Beckham' were white men. In 'Bend it Like Beckham', the Indian family was caricatured as dysfunctional with no suitable Indian boyfriend for the girl. She had to redeem herself and find happiness through a white boyfriend. If you believe that is not a case of subtle racism portrayed in that movie then I have nothing to add. Worse it was facilitated by Indians (Stockholm effect?)? Again, at an individual level I have no problem with anyone marrying anyone of their choice without regard to race, religion, etc. (No Viviana, it is not just movies, they have a tremendous social impact - think Star Wars!). Btw, do you believe that the lack of USA women presidents is NOT a case of sexism? > BTW: In the "Pope John Paul v the Hijacked by Marxists ideology Liberation > Theologists in the Latin American govts", I have yet to hear George > Pinto's viewpoint on WHAT John Paul should have done, and on what basis? The thread and my interest is not what John Paul II should have done. If you recall, I asked Fr. Agnelo Gomes who mentioned the clergy (or something to that effect) should be involved, and my question was one of consistency: how come JPII dismissed Liberation Theology, a significant movement in South America while active in Poland & Eastern Europe politics? Why his interest in the oppressed people of Eastern Europe and not the oppressed people of South America who were actually making some progress to the extent that the rich got a little anxious and killed Archbishop Romero. Please see this link "Oscar Romero: Bishop of the Poor", http://salt.claretianpubs.org/romero/romero.html. Pay special attention to the phrase "The poor never expected him to take their side and the elites of church and state felt betrayed." In a subsequent post I asked a more significant question which goes beyond JPII, Liberation theology, etc: where should the line be drawn for clergy and lay involvement in politics? Your response was limited at best: clergy should not be involved in partisan politics. May I ask: If as you claim that Goa is going to the dogs and the little folk are robbed blind by the politicians, should the clergy stand by and watch? > Are George Pinto's attacks on John Paul II visavis Liberation Theologian > politicians.....objective? Yes, from my vantage point an overwhelming yes although that is a subjective view ;-) However, certainly more objective than your current understanding. It is clear to me that you have made a shallow reading (intentionally?). > or are they about some underlying anti-Catholic and anti-European hangup? I am interested in justice. For a number of reasons one cannot be involved in all issues of justice in this world. I have focused on this forum on certain topics. All the name-tags like anti-Catholic, anti-European mean little. By mentioning them, I am giving them more credence than they deserve and distracting from the real issues of power elites, unjust institutions, disparity in honors, benefits and burdens unequally shared in society, etc. - all the injustices which manifest themselves in racism, sexism, etc. That is their outlet. I do not believe the world has progressed beyond the world that Gandhi, Martin Luther King found themselves in. Their struggles continue today. With my one paisa contribution, I honor them and their fight. You may not understand or agree, but you are free to pick which side you are on. I have picked my side. Btw, it is interesting in my JPII comment you assumed my comment was because he is European (and therefore I am anti-white!). Why did you not assume it was an anti-powerful, anti-elite, anti-poor comment? In acccusing others of having blinders, we wear our own. Regards, George
