Indians are obsessed with White Skin: Freida Pinto - Page 4

Originally posted by: ..Himani..

I don't agree with Pinto here. It's really not the case in India that I have been into. People around me are never into the complexions and all. But as ideologies do differ, there may be few who believe in skin colour but most don't. If it were so, then SRK, Ajay Devgan, Kajol, Deepika, Rajnikant, Rani Mukherjee...and the list goes on and on, would have never got the kind of fame that they have.

And beauty lies in expression and demeanor. Physically, everyone is beautiful but it;s the internal being that matters and if it's pure, the person is definitely a beauty to die for.

And yeah, never to forget, this discrimination came from west only. History is the witness, for sure. Remember Nelson Mandela's fight for self and fellows???

From my own experience of working in India, I haven't come across any blatant discrimination based on skin colour in the places I worked. I've seen both fair and dark skinned people doing well and I've seen that those who don't perform, whatever be their skin colour, they get fired. In fact, after the first year, out of the 2 people who were fired, both were fair and one was a very fair good looking girl.

Originally posted by: seemarao2

which India are u living it? RAcism in india is real.Stop trying to hide it under carpet.

Originally posted by: souro

From my own experience of working in India, I haven't come across any blatant discrimination based on skin colour in the places I worked. I've seen both fair and dark skinned people doing well and I've seen that those who don't perform, whatever be their skin colour, they get fired. In fact, after the first year, out of the 2 people who were fired, both were fair and one was a very fair good looking girl.

However, our job being client facing, importance is placed on how one looks, in the sense of how one presents oneself, which is very different from skin colour or beauty as we understand. There were many people even in the top management who were not blessed with the best of looks, but they put in effort to look presentable, and that applies for everyone. Aesthetic sense is also a merit, so if 2 employees have similar qualities work wise, obviously the one with better aesthetic sense will be more favourable.

Originally posted by: souro

Just because someone has different experience than you, doesn't mean he/she is hiding under the carpet and doesn't know the real India.
What makes you so sure that you are correct and the other person is wrong? That you know India better than the other person?

India has several regions, and trend of one region may not be same as the other. Maybe the person has experienced India in a region where discrimination based on skin colour is not prevalent. Maybe you experienced India in a region where discrimination based on skin colour is more prevalent. Doesn't mean the other person is wrong just because he/she didn't have the same experience as you, if indeed you are talking out of your own experience or based on some informed article and not just based on the words of a two bit celebrity like Freida Pinto.

How is insulting Frieda Pinto as a two bit celebrity reinforcing your "argument" that there may or may not be discrimination in India based on skin color? How many "bits" are you by the way? By all accounts, she is more successful and more famous than you. And if your social status is not relevant, neither is Pinto's success or lack thereof.

She spoke of struggles faced by dark skinned women in India. She was a model and a TV presenter who auditioned for movies back when she was in Mumbai. Any which way I look at it, I don't see how your opinions are any more credible than hers, regardless of how much "client facing" you did.

She said Indians are obsessed/fascinated with white/light skin. It is well documented that in South Asian and East Asian countries, white/light skin has traditionally been considered more attractive and preferred. I can pull up a dozen articles if I have to which support that notion. So that statement of hers probably is not even up for argument. and from whatever she said in the interview, I didn't come across allegations of discrimination so even there you are off-base.

The whole "debate" started off with her interview so to dismiss her statements now would be to dismiss the entire debate. Ideally, opinions shouldn't be debated anyway. As moderator, you could have ensured that the proposition of the debate is articulated in such a way that only for/against arguments is made: "are Indians obsessed with fair/light skin?", or "do Indians discriminate based on skin color?" But we all know this mansion is too far gone for any serious debater to harbor such grand illusions, that it allows any/all nitwits to jump in and make random statements about Pinto's "weird looks" or "fuzzy car accidents" which have no bearing on the subject whatsoever.

I felt she is saying "dark skinned Indians you are beautiful as you are, because the white americans here want to be you with your dark complexion".

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

How is insulting Frieda Pinto as a two bit celebrity reinforcing your "argument" that there may or may not be discrimination in India based on skin color? How many "bits" are you by the way? By all accounts, she is more successful and more famous than you. And if your social status is not relevant, neither is Pinto's success or lack thereof.

She spoke of struggles faced by dark skinned women in India. She was a model and a TV presenter who auditioned for movies back when she was in Mumbai. Any which way I look at it, I don't see how your opinions are any more credible than hers, regardless of how much "client facing" you did.

She said Indians are obsessed/fascinated with white/light skin. It is well documented that in South Asian and East Asian countries, white/light skin has traditionally been considered more attractive and preferred. I can pull up a dozen articles if I have to which support that notion. So that statement of hers probably is not even up for argument. and from whatever she said in the interview, I didn't come across allegations of discrimination so even there you are off-base.

The whole "debate" started off with her interview so to dismiss her statements now would be to dismiss the entire debate. Ideally, opinions shouldn't be debated anyway. As moderator, you could have ensured that the proposition of the debate is articulated in such a way that only for/against arguments is made: "are Indians obsessed with fair/light skin?", or "do Indians discriminate based on skin color?" But we all know this mansion is too far gone for any serious debater to harbor such grand illusions, that it allows any/all nitwits to jump in and make random statements about Pinto's "weird looks" or "fuzzy car accidents" which have no bearing on the subject whatsoever.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

also, why would it be any fairer to evaluate people on the basis of talent and intelligence, and not looks? These can also be in-born, same as looks... You can work hard to stay fit and look good. same as how you work hard on your skills to become talented. So why exclude good looks from the equation?

Honest to God, this is the only statement I found which is absolutely bang-on the question.

I still don't have a good answer to this.

The only thing I can think of is that intelligence is more "useful" to mankind than good looks. But as for the fairness of discriminating based on one attribute and not on another, the question did stump me.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

[off topic] Sorry, I think I didn't do a good job of distinguishing between Souro the poster and Souro the moderator. My mistake.

You do a fine job as a moderator.

I guess sometimes it becomes necessary to accommodate quantity even if it means you have to sacrifice quality, when it comes to allowing topics. I can understand that.