HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MARDHEMS@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu ()
Subject: Loyalty to Who (was Dissension...)
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:18:32 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

        I received some very thought-provoking comments the other day, and
I believe that they deserve further scrutiny.  I hope that others will provide
input on this topic, not so much about specific international issues, but about
the larger question: Where should our loyalties lie?
	

In <C19FpC.3C@rice.edu> vijaypai@owlnet.rice.edu writes:


> Any Indian who would support Republicans is a Pakistani in disguise.
> The Republicans have been overwhelmingly pro-Pak and anti-Indian
> in their terms in government...[more politics, deleted]...

> So, if you want to support bigots and Pakistanis, that's fine by me,
> but you'll be responsible when some Christian fanatic wins the
> Presidency here or when Kashmir and Punjab are taken away from
> the motherland.


	I don't make my voting decisions based on the candidate's attitudes
toward India, and I think that if you're a citizen or resident of the US, then
your first loyalty must be to THIS nation.  

	I find it helpful to think of it like this: Our bond with India is a
bond of RACE and CULTURE, and not of political ideology.  We must do whatever
is necessary to preserve our race and culture (and as some of you have noted, I
do my part) but, we must also not become another special interest group.

	Do you really want to diminish the Indian community to the level of
just another special interest, like the Jews, blacks, militant homosexuals,
labor unions, etc.??  Special interest politicking makes me sick, but I'm
afraid that Bill Clinton is going to make it even more pervasive in our
government.

	By the way, I don't buy your anti-Republican argument.  I know many
Republican Indians, and also, the top Republican fundraiser in this country was
an Indian surgeon in South Florida (I forget his name). 

	If we live here, it is our duty to support the Constitution, and
believe in the ideals of this great country, while also preserving our race and
culture, which most of us cherish dearly.  Let's leave the petty politicking to
the folks up in Washington and New Delhi.

                                                  
					Very Truly Yours,


						Maneesh

	


Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit)
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating, ABCD's, and Dissension
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:04:22 GMT

In article <1jnht6INNei9@bigboote.WPI.EDU> rangok@wpi.WPI.EDU (Rangaswamy Keshavan) writes:
>Don't let this guys idiotic rantings have anything to do with your feelings 
>towards Indians or India.  He is obviously ignorant and has a mind of a flea.
>This guy is not worth the bandwidth that he is getting and deserves to be
>completely ignored.  His points that he brings up are ludicrous to say the
>least.  In case he forgot, just to remind him, we are all on ONE planet, 
>called Earth, and are ONE race, called homo sapiens (or humans) and there
>is no other real distinction between any of us other than what we have made
>up.  Also, there is no such thing as a pure Indian race as the Indian race
>itself is a mixture of Aryans and the folks who were on the subcontinent
>before the Aryans came, and also of the countless invading forces from the
>middle east and so on.  It just is that the world is in a very different time
>than it has ever been and many are having a terrible time accepting the simple
>fact that it is time for all of us to change and to become ONE race from ONE
>planet so that we can go on into the future and shine brightly, or else we
>as a race will dim and extinguish to nothingness and no one will care.

I don't think Maneesh's comments were idiotic or ignorant, and I don't
think they should be ignored.  I think they were opinions stated in a
manner lacking tact and sensitivity.

Any one who doesn't believe that Indians have a unique culture and
traditions they can be proud of is blind.  It is ridiculous to
suppress everything that makes us unique as a
nation/state/religion/caste/family/individual by speaking of a single,
homogeneous planet and race.  Like any other heritage, our values and
traditions sometimes weigh us down with useless baggage, and sometimes
liberate and help us.

Inevitably, a culture changes for better or worse, and is sometimes
completely destroyed, when it comes into contact with another.  It is
also ridiculous to eliminate all contact with other cultures in the
hopes of preserving ours, frozen in time.  

It does make sense to express pride in whatever makes us unique as
long as we don't promote hatred for people who are different from us.
It also makes sense to get rid of outdated baggage and accept helpful
and liberating values from others, without sacrificing our own.

-- 
Milind S. Pandit			| pandit@ssd.intel.com
Operating Systems Engineer		|
Intel Supercomputer Systems Division	| Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU (Puneet_S)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Loyalty to Who (was Dissension...)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:51:46 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Reply-To: mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: rosie.uh.edu


>> Any Indian who would support Republicans is a Pakistani in disguise.
>> The Republicans have been overwhelmingly pro-Pak and anti-Indian
>> in their terms in government...[more politics, deleted]...
>
>> So, if you want to support bigots and Pakistanis, that's fine by me,
>> but you'll be responsible when some Christian fanatic wins the
>> Presidency here or when Kashmir and Punjab are taken away from
>> the motherland.
>
>
>	I don't make my voting decisions based on the candidate's attitudes
>toward India, and I think that if you're a citizen or resident of the US, then
>your first loyalty must be to THIS nation.  

P.	Wholeheartedly 100% agree.  I visited my cousins in 1989 before the
	Iraq crisis.  My cousin who is in the Indian army said at that time
	that he support Iraq against the U.S.  I was shall we slightly
	preterbed, but realized at that time, that if India supported Iraq
	against the U.S. I could not support India....
>
>	I find it helpful to think of it like this: Our bond with India is a
>bond of RACE and CULTURE, and not of political ideology.  We must do whatever
>is necessary to preserve our race and culture (and as some of you have noted, I
>do my part) but, we must also not become another special interest group.
>
P.	100% Agree

>	Do you really want to diminish the Indian community to the level of
>just another special interest, like the Jews, blacks, militant homosexuals,
>labor unions, etc.??  Special interest politicking makes me sick, but I'm
>afraid that Bill Clinton is going to make it even more pervasive in our
>government.
>
P.	Please! Not that! I can't stand it.  This country is no longer for
	the people as a whole.   It's almost become that the minoritiy 
	interest groups have more rights than everyone else.  We complain
	about that with the socio-political situation in India the same
	way....Don't we?
>                                                  
>					Very Truly Yours,
>
>
>						Maneesh
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
LATER DAZE
Puneet                                                   MBA2@JETSON.UH.EDU   or
                                                         BBRC215@BAL0053.B-R.COM
From: rrp@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rakesh.r.patel)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating, ABCD's, and Dissension
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:48:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

In article <1k3k0tINNo7s@menudo.uh.edu> mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU writes:
>>I didn't see Johnson or Carter breaking down any doors to change things
>>either. India is on the edge of US policy. Whatever happens in India,
>>it matters very little to the US.
>
>P.	Actually that's very true.  Irregardless of the party in power.
>	You people seem to think that it really matters (not the poster
>	who posted the above).  It's very simple actually.  USSR wanted
>	a warm water port.  The US feared that Pakistan like Afganistan
>	was too weak and might fall against a USSR invasion, so they 
>	supported Pakistan in order to set-up military bases to prevent
>	the spread of communism.

I was just pointing out this out because of they you were riding the 
Republicans in your previous posting. I also feel party doesn't matter.
>
>	With India it was a different policy.  The Himalayas present a 
>	great barrier between USSR and India and it would be difficult	
>	to set-up an easily accesible transport road between the two
>	countries (we're talking about the cold war).  Also, no way
>	would the USSR try to invade and take over 700+ million 
>	people.  It just wouldn't work as easily in modern times.  

I think you should recall, that back in the 19th century, the British
actually feared just such a thing - a Russian challenge in the 
subcontinent. That is why the British were so keen on establishing a
footing in the Northwest Frontier and Afghanistan. Off, undoubtedly,
such an undertaking would be near impossible today, but back in those
days, it was a real possiblity.

>
>	It's not that India did not matter to the U.S. in what you all
>	seem to think.  It was more that Pakistan (particularly the
>	volatile government of the time) was considered a "weak link"
>	that would allow the USSR a warm water port.

I agree that Pakistan mattered more to the US because India had begun to
show socialist tendencies back in the 50's and 60's, while Pakistan
was just trying to get their act straighten out. When India began to 
aligned herself with Russia, it seems only natural that US have a foothold
on the subcontinent, namely Pakistan. In the 70's and 80's this trend
was superceded by the Islamic revivals around the world and the Russian
invasion into Afghanistan. Pakistan seemed like a natural conduit for arms
to the rebels for sticking it to the Russians and having some presence in 
an Islamic country. The warm water port theory is old as the hills - but
I don't think it applies in this case.


Tell you the truth - the US couldn't give a shit if it was Pakistan or
India. As long as it helped the US, either would suffice.

Rakesh Patel
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: moh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Kateri/Mary Anne)
Subject: Re: Career Choices..
Reply-To: moh2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:39:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.152657.13829@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.144123.19577@research.nj.nec.com>, rsd@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Rajiv Dighe) writes:

>> 
>> 			Middle-Class Blues
>> 			(aka Male Menopause)
>> 
>
>Excellent poetry. You sure have a good potential to be a 'Hemingway'.


Why, why, oh why do people keep comparing reasonably talented writers
to Hemingway?  Do you actually *like* his sexist,
big-white-hunter-takes-on-the-world, incapable of writing sentences
longer than 4 words prose?

 - Amirthi (who is loving Stein at the moment and dreading the week
when her Modern Novel class does Hemingway...)

-- 
We may affirm absolutely that nothing great in the world has ever been
accomplished without passion.

					 - George Hegel
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: malaviya@borneo.gmd.de (Ashutosh Malaviya - FUZZY)
Subject: Career Choices..
Followup-To: society.culture.indian
Reply-To: malaviya@borneo.gmd.de (Ashutosh Malaviya - Fuzzy)
Organization: GMD, German National Research Center for Computer Science
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 13:57:25 GMT

Forwarding an excellent poem written by Rajiv Dighe in
alt.culture.us.asian-indian.
-Ashutosh

 rsd@ccrl.nj.nec.com (Rajiv Dighe) writes:
|> Something I penned long long time ago on career choices in India.
|> 
|> 
|> Rajiv
|> 
|> 			Middle-Class Blues
|> 			(aka Male Menopause)
|> 
|> Engineering, Medicine or the Sciences
|> Were the only allowances
|> that were allowed as career choices
|> by our middle class deities...
|> So we silently supressed our desires
|> molded our dreams in more earthly fires 
|> Years later we have emerged
|> our creativity still submerged
|> Looking wistfully at Rushdie
|> To pen like that would make me free
|> Me on the other hand have so many thoughts
|> But to truly express them, the skills I have not
|> Vocational guidance was a joke
|> Our future full of mirrors and smoke
|> Art and Litt. a feminine domain
|> Math and Science was our reign
|> Such mind-bending stereotypes
|> Hopefully many of them have died
|> On hindsight I think of so many pleasures
|> that were denied because of a mind-closure
|> Music is one thing I would have loved to learn
|> But there was no incentive, no potential wages to earn
|> We were taught to learn by the rote
|> Independent thinking not in vogue
|> Essay-type questions to test your memory
|> All black and white- isnt that scary ?
|> I look back and see how much I had to unlearn
|> before I could even start to *learn*
|> Our inquisitive nature was systematically blunted
|> our questions artfully shunted
|> Nobody taught us how to ask Why
|> How was all that was needed to get by
|> I shake my head and wonder ruefully
|> How much potential gets converted truly
|> How many Hemingways did we turn away
|> As we walked the narrow straight middle-class way ?
|> 							RSD


Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: rairan@ecf.toronto.edu (RAI Ranjan)
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating, ABCD's, and Dissension
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 09:22:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.190825.18912@draco.macsch.com> dsb@godzilla.pi.macsch.com (Deepak Brar) writes:

     <stuff deleted>
>
>Maneesh, these people you are supporting are racist and bigoted. They are
>racist toward people exactly like you! Why don't you sit down and actually
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>listen to what Buchanan says about minorities in this country and then
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>realize, being a minority yourself, that he is talking about you! Indians
>in general do not support people who are bigoted toward any non-white
>person. Maybe that is why you do not see your Buchanan platform touted
>on s.c.i or a.c.u.a-i.
>
>Deepak
>------

Why don't you sit down and listen to what Pat Buchanan has to say.  He'll
be back on CNN starting Feb. 1.  You might be surprised.  

But then again, why let the facts interfere with a perfectly good liberal
argument. :)
-- 
Ranjan Rai                             <rairan@ecf.toronto.edu> 
Engineering Science 9T3                <rr@odin.control.toronto.edu> 
University of Toronto                    
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian,soc.culture.indian
From: pras0005@student.tc.umn.edu ()
Subject: Democrats are Indian, Republicans are Pakistani :-)
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:07:31 GMT

In article <C1F08s.Eqt@rice.edu> vijaypai@owlnet.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai) writes:
>|> What a bunch of bull! 
>|> Rakesh Patel
>
>I said it before, and I'll say it again.
>The Republican party is the party of Pat "Religious War" Buchanan,
>David "The Grand Wizard" Duke, George "Willie Horton" Bush, and
>Jesse "The Artists, Jews, Blacks, and Immigrants are Ruining this 
>Country" Helms.
>
I will echo Rakesh, "what a bunch of Bull."
We can just as easily argue that the Democrats are the hand-out party of
Jesse Jackson, the wimp party of Paul Wellstone, the can't-balance-my-
checkbook-so-I'll-blame-it-on-my-wife party of Gerry Sikorski, and the every-
flake-ends-up-in-California-that's-my-constituency Jerry Brown.

These arguments help absolutely no-one, and shed no light on any subject 
whatsoever.  Characterizing a whole party by the most outspoken individuals is
short-sighted.  The old adage empty vessels make the most noise applies to
democrats and republicans alike.

>If those are the people you'd support then so be it. I prefer the
>party of people like Bill Clinton <who spoke to several Indian
>and Asian Democratic Organizations in his race>, NC Governor
>Jim Hunt <who has been meeting with Indian groups over several decades>,

So what about the Indian fundraiser for the GOP?  Bush MUST have spoken to him.
>and many others, who have acted without appealing to racism or 
>
>Anyway, it's no coincidence that the Pakistan lobby has
>purchased the services of one of the same ad agencies that
>ran George Bush's campaign. I hope they get trounced the
>same way George Bush did ... and all of it no thanks to you.
>
I wait breathlessly to see pro-Pakistan, anti-India ads on TV :-)
Maybe you should take this type of paranoia to SCI, better yet, I will.
>-- vp




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shiv A. Prasad			"In my opinion, we don't devote nearly
pras0005@student.tc.umn.edu 	 enough scientific research to finding 
				 a cure for jerks."
								Calvin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU (Puneet_S)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Interracial Dating, ABCD's, and Dissension
Date: 26 Jan 1993 15:06:05 GMT
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: rosie.uh.edu

>I didn't see Johnson or Carter breaking down any doors to change things
>either. India is on the edge of US policy. Whatever happens in India,
>it matters very little to the US.

P.	Actually that's very true.  Irregardless of the party in power.
	You people seem to think that it really matters (not the poster
	who posted the above).  It's very simple actually.  USSR wanted
	a warm water port.  The US feared that Pakistan like Afganistan
	was too weak and might fall against a USSR invasion, so they 
	supported Pakistan in order to set-up military bases to prevent
	the spread of communism.

	With India it was a different policy.  The Himalayas present a 
	great barrier between USSR and India and it would be difficult	
	to set-up an easily accesible transport road between the two
	countries (we're talking about the cold war).  Also, no way
	would the USSR try to invade and take over 700+ million 
	people.  It just wouldn't work as easily in modern times.  

	It's not that India did not matter to the U.S. in what you all
	seem to think.  It was more that Pakistan (particularly the
	volatile government of the time) was considered a "weak link"
	that would allow the USSR a warm water port.

_______________________________________________________________________________
LATER DAZE
Puneet                                                   MBA2@JETSON.UH.EDU   or
                                                         BBRC215@BAL0053.B-R.COM
From: shashi@aix3090b.uky.edu (Shashi Sathaye)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: mixed marriages (re: Satyen's review)
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:54:31 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

In case of IAW/other_M (not necessarily white, but white seems to be prominent),
there is one subtle topic involved. I notice that the white man who wrote
- if they don't accept me they will lose a daughter - this is assumed by 
majority of Indian parents no matter whom she marries. The 'culture' says the
daughter is 'given' into the marriage. On the other hand, in U.S. at least, I 
have noticed that when a son marries he 'weds into' the brides family. So even
though not totally lost to the parents, at least a 'share' of the son is lost.
It is interesting to note how various phrases reflect the customs dominating
in the society.
Most of the mixed marriages that I know of this type where IAW marries outside
the Indian community are very successful. The parents of the girls have either
forgiven or understood and accepted the son-in-law after the grand children are
born. In all these cases, the white in-laws were very supportive and 
understanding.
Many of my friends' sons are dating white women and two or three are now 
married. From what little conversation I have with the parents on this topic
(mostly they are trying to avoid the topic, I do not clearly know why), it
seems that the mothers are finding it hard to accept the 'white view' that
when a son marries he then really belongs to his wife first.. If parents had 
a 'love marriage' themselves, they try to understand and work on getting over
the sense of loss. Others are simply hurt psychologically and punish the son
and daughter-in-law for it.
One of our friend married a woman from Jamaica. He has been essentially cut off
from the previous friend-circle who spoke Marathi with him mainly because his
wife not only refused to learn the language but got suspicious whenever anyone
spoke in Marathi. But as a family they seem to be getting along very well and
have 3 cute and healthy children.

--
--With best regards from Shashi
Login name: shashi | System Programmer By Profession | In real life:
                   | but heart(&SWEET-HEART) in Math.| Shashi Sathaye
shashi@ms.uky.edu	sysshash@ukcc.uky.edu  shashi@aix3090.uky.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: rrp@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (rakesh.r.patel)
Subject: Re: Eve-teasing, and divorce (was Dissension...)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:58:47 GMT

In article <1jseo9$gu2@agate.berkeley.edu> mvij@soda.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.183412.18395@midway.uchicago.edu> moh2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>The overwhelming consensus among women who've lived there and here
>>seems to be that women have far more ability to live independent,
>>productive, and self-satisfying lives here than in India.  The amount
>                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
>>of eve-teasing that goes on there is shocking.  This is respect?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Why is it so widespread?

Elementary, my dear Manish, no cable TV.
>
>I think I liked e.e. cummings better.  Do you think a philosopher can
>express that better than a poet?  :-)
>

If people don't stop quoting,  I will go nuts!


Rakesh Patel
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: bjag@nwu.edu (Bharathi Jagadeesh)
Subject: Re: Equality of Man
Followup-To: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:55:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.211337.18044@midway.uchicago.edu>,
moh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Kateri/Mary Anne) wrote:
> 
> Rakesh says
> >I don't think anybody has to be taught equality of man.  It is just
> >an innate feeling.
> 
> I wish.  Sorry, Rakesh, but I think history bears me out in claiming
> that the majority of humanity does not and never has believed in
> equality of man (not to mention the inherent assumptions in the phrase
> itself.... what of women?  children?
>Amirthi

I think Amirthi is right, that the majority of humanity has not believed in
the equality of man (used broadly). But more people believe that now then
they did five hundred years ago, two hundred years ago or even fifty years
ago. It was a revolutionary idea that really can't be turned back -- you
can't go back to believing that some subgroup people are unequal once
you've accepted they are equal. So I'd agree with amirthi, but with the
hopeful note that clearly, belief in the equality of man is something that
_can_ be taught. Maybe it can't be taught to adults who are killing each
other, but it can be taught to children. And when it is, it will continue
the revolution that has already begun. 

Bharathi Jagadeesh                 bjag@nwu.edu