HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh Yadav)
Subject: Re: Interracial marriage.......
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:08:53 GMT

=======================
 samaddar@siemens.com writes:
>
>The primary reason for marriage, IMHO, is to have a stable and 
>conducive environment for raising kids. That, plus having the 
>security and comfort of knowing that you someone to depend upon.

 That is one of the many ways to look at "what is marriage all about?"

 Marriage is much more than having kids and feeling secure. 

 May be I am misunderstanding you, but let me take these words literally.
 Then I would say that for any relationship, let alone marriage, 
 the existence of self-confidence and sense of security preceeds the 
 start of relationship. Making a relationship responsible for one's security
 (or happiness) puts a great deal of strain on the relationship. A strain 
 that, more often than not, leads to frustration and a sense of helplessness.
 Not a good thing for a relationship.

 So, we can ask - "what is marriage all about?"
 Marriage, IMHO, is a relationship where one discovers and actualizes 
 all of one's potentials with one's soul-mate: that includes biological,
 but extends to emotions, to mind, to soul.....
 
 Body has the potential for orgasm. So do emotions and mind and soul.

> For indulging in your interests, a spouse
>is not strictly necessary. Good if s/he is interested, but not catastrophic
>if s/he doesn't eg; 

 Yes, it is strictly/theoretically not necessary.
 But, it is fun if she is. It is very much possible, and is likely, that
 interests are different to begin with; and evolve differently as life goes
 on. But, that is the interesting part of any relationship - gives you
 more to learn. And to learn with someone you love, is like being kids
 again - playing with crayons. You can do anything stupid and just laugh.

 Break in relationships has more fundamental cause than differing interests.

>If jealousy was not a human emotion, I would say that one could
>even have sexual relations outside marriage, but try to have kids only from
>1 spouse.

 It is consistent with your basic view of marriage espoused above.
 But I disagree, once more.

 I believe in monogamy. In sex, you give everything. It is a submission
 and acceptance that is so complete that, IMHO, it can be reciprocated with
 just one. You can get everything you want, do whatever you please, give
 anything she wants.... what would one need another for? 

 Sex is not an escape. Sex is celebration. 

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: raghavan@wk28.nas.nasa.gov (Venkatraman Raghavan)
Subject: Re: RACISM
Organization: -
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:21:22 GMT

hsingh@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (Harpreet Singh) writes:

   >       Racism is part of the white people'e race.  For some 
   >reason, they consider themselves superior than other races.  

So do many indians I know.

   >All the minorities should stay together and united.  

Good advice, whether there is racism aimed at you or not.

   >I don't about Arizona but in Toronto(Canada) there are lot of Indians and I
   >mean a lot of them.  So the white person will think twice before they can
   >say/do/make fun of an Indian in Toronto.  The best thing is to stand up to 
   >them, and never show that u r scared or something, otherwise will then take 
   >even more advantage of the Indian's in Arizona.  

Being overly sensitive can make only matters worse when somebody
is making fun of you. Ignoring is a better choice. More serious is 
when people discriminate/exploit a person because of his/her race.
   
   >Why do u think India is still a third world country.??

CIA conspiracy.??  :-) 
How about lazy people, stupid politicians, misguided policies,
corrupt businessmen, no rewards for working hard, communal and 
linguistic hatreds etc.

   >Harpreet Singh

Sorry to come down so hard on you. I think Ashish Vaidya and you 
are barking up the wrong tree.

Regards,
Raghavan
From: mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU (Puneet_S)
Subject: Re: Your Duty as an IA/American
Reply-To: mba2@Rosie.UH.EDU
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:37:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.172258.14788@nas.nasa.gov>, raghavan@wk28.nas.nasa.gov (Venkatraman Raghavan) writes:
>mba2@Jane.UH.EDU writes:
>
>>                                 Felt a little apathy cause I was 
>>certain my "presidential candidate" wouldn't make it, but I ended
>>voting anyways.  
>
>Russ (sic) Perot supporter, huh?
>
>---
Well yes actually if you must know.  I couldn't vote for Clinton
because I happen to be in the Environmental business plus he remind
me of a cross between Kennedy and Carter and I couldn't vote for
Bush cause he reminds me of nothing.  He doesn't have the charisma
or any appeal that a president should.  A president is a figurehead
who gives orders and directs a country.  Bush could have directed
his party, he didn't.  Anyway, yes I am.  I had to vote for somebody
other than Bush or Clinton.  I wasn't voting against them however,
I was voting for Perot.  He's the only one in a long time to have
the guts to come and tell the people that our country is going down
the tubes and if we don't take care of it, it'll be a second class
country.  As Indian Americans, I think we should be interested in
the politics of our home.

VCD, Puneet (D-Poon) 
 
It's a 106 miles to Chicago
We have a full tank of gas
Half a pack of Cigarettes
It's dark
And we have our shades on.
From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: arranged marriages
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:33:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T



>In article <1992Nov3.160550.16577@midway.uchicago.edu>, moh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Kateri/Mary Anne) writes:
> 
> But, I have to say that your earlier statment is false.  Where you say
> that Indian women are apprehensive but conditioned to expect sex...
> 
> I've talked to at least three Indian women - all over 21, who had no
> clue that they were expected to have sex on the wedding night.  All of
> them thought that it would be months later.  (Now, how they reconcile
> this with the fact that if a woman is not pregnant nine months after
> her wedding all her relatives start worrying, I don't know.  I don't
> think they really understand the connection between sex and having
> children). 
> 

I am talking about Indian women in India. They learn about the wedding
night syndrome from close friends and female relatives who have already
gone through an arranged marriage. They expect sexual encounter on
the wedding night. They may be disappointed if there is none. May start
wondering if the guy is a gay ...

Indian women who are raised in US on the other hand have a stigma attached 
to arranged marriages to begin with. Even if they had an arranged marriage 
they are least likely to accept it, leave alone talk about it. As such 
other Indian women here do not know about the wedding night tactics and 
expectations in an arranged marriage situation.

> Not only that, but one woman didn't really know what sex entailed at
> all.  I tried to educate her, and I'm afraid she was pretty shocked.
> Sigh...
> I guess there are some benefits to Catholic schools and 4th grade sex
> ed classes after all...:-)

She was shocked because it has not been customary to talk about sex before
marriage in Indian culture. Sex talks before marriage are very private.

Besides she would much rather learn about sex from her husband. More
fun that way, try out (not just talk about) all those 64 Kamasutra 
positions :-)

> I was asking if Indian guys talk about sex with other Indian
> guys.  I know American guys do.....

I don't think Indian guys talk about sex either with each other.
Not in India at least. I haven't seen very many talk about it
here either. As I said 'sex' is considered private in Indian culture.
I don't necessarily think that it should be so private..

> I know that Indian girls pretty
> much don't (although I was surprised how much Indian adult women *do*
> talk about sex, and their husbands :-).

I suppose marriage and subsequently experiencing sex does it to them.

> P.S. Does she mind your posting such details to the net?

I don't know. Anyway I am NOT planning to give any further details ...

Alok
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh Yadav)
Subject: Generalizations........
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:45:44 GMT

================
 baindur@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Satyen G Baindur) writes:
>>>moh2@midway.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>>>Hmmm....
>>>>I suddenly realized that half the women I talked to were in fact Sri
>>>>Lankan, and from small villages.  Therein may lay the heart of the
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>I have to be careful about such generaliations of Sri Lankans as
>>>>Indians - it's similar, but not quite the same.

>-----[delete subseq followups]---------

>Sure. Someone will then feel free to generalize about US men and women after 
>talking with a few Haitians from small villages. Just so they don't throw 
>things off too much, I'll ask them to talk with a few Alaskan Inuit.

 Yes.
 Every one should feel free to generalize about anything. It doesn't
 matter really what the generalizer (anyone's) opinion is. 
 That, I am afraid, is not what the issue is.

 First of India is no more than many Sri Lankas. Second, much of India
 is small villages. Third - and this is most important - we are not 
 arguing in this forum, about generalizations per se; we are arguing 
 about principles behind the generalizations. 

 Human beings are basically similar all over the world. The fundamental
 issues of life are similar every where. The details may differ, but
 the essence doesn't. Generalizations help us formulate the key questions.
 And, to that respect, genralizations apply globally.

 Generalizations are not for judging others, or even knowing others.
 Generalizations are for knowing the basic issues that we humans wrestle
 with in our solitudes.

 I find some including Amirthi to be thought provoking, most of the times.
 
T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu

what is general is NOT universal. 
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: c_lakhan@csd.uwe.ac.uk (C Lakhani)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: arranged marriages
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:25:20 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol

In article <1992Nov5.193904.14535@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>In article <samaddar.720917308@dumbo>, samaddar@siemens.com (Sumitro Samaddar) writes:
>> They don't have to do it on the first night. Like they don't have to do it
>> on a first date either. 
>
>True, it is like a first date. If you picked up your partner carefully,
>then you may make it on the first date itself ...
>
>> But, unlike a date, it is not so easy to back out
>> if this first night together doesn't work out well.
>
>And that is one of the major problems with arranged marriages.
>
Well, would you seriously consider backing out of your arranged marriage 
because the earth didn't move for you on your first encounter?

I would have thought one of the nicest things about arranged marriages is 
that you are allowed to make mistakes and still have the opportunity to 
make amendments.  For all you chappies about to experience the first encounter, I would suggest you buy a good (not doctored for the westerners) copy of the 
KS and take note of the chapter on etiquette.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian,soc.culture.indian
From: popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat)
Subject: Re: Your Duty as an IA/American
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:43:29 GMT


You bring up a very good point.  Can a guest be a good steward?

If you feel like a guest in your own country, will you take the
initiative, make the sacrifices, do your part to make the American
experiment succeed?

I met a young Indian American recently who was afraid to call himself
an American.  This guy was just as American as Connie Chung or George
Bush, but he didn't "feel" American.  How can you be an American all
your life and not feel American?  This baffles me; I think this is a
new thing, and I think it is dangerous.

I'm an ABCD who was born in 1961 and graduated from high school in
1979.  I'm older than most ABCDs.  I remember -- it was not too long
ago -- when we were *all* Americans, and not fragmented by ethnicity
and race and social class.  Sure, there were differences, but I think
we all felt like Americans, there was never any doubt.

As a nation we must re-unify, or else our nation has no future.  A
non-country cannot compete with a country, just as a
non-basketball-team cannot compete with a basketball team.  You must
never, never, buy into Pat Buchanan's concept of "American," or the
Japanese concept of "American," because if you do, then there is no
America.

In my view, you can feel good about India and your Indianness, but you
had better not forget that you're American.  Besides the good of the
country, there's a personal interest.  If you don't think of yourself
as fully American, you'll be a guest in your own country; you'll be
marginalized and partially disenfranchised.  And you'll be measured
only by somebody else's standards, and you'll have to play by somebody
else's rules.

So back to the original poster's issue of voting, of course you have a
duty to vote.  That duty is both to yourself and to your country.  You
also have the duty of citizenship, community involvement, and standing
up for your beliefs.  And when you hear somebody say something like
"you can't be both Indian and American," you have the duty to correct
him.

Kris Popat
MIT Rm E15-391    Cambridge, MA  02139
From: ponamgi@cs.unc.edu (Ponamgi)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Mississippi Masala: Another opinion
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:31:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.211054.11332@westford.ccur.com>, guest@westford.ccur.com (Guest Login) writes:
|> MM certainly has caused some discomfort in the IA community. I
|> keep hearing the term "stereotypical" associated with some of
|> the characters in the movie; but for me the characters rang true:
|> I mean, I KNOW all these people; some of my own relatives are like
|> that.  As far as plausibility, the movie has paralleled my own life
|> to an extent ( I was born in Uganda; my family fled during Amin's reign;
|> ten years later, when I was 24, I married a caucasian american over
|> voicerfous objections from my family).  Obsession over personal property
|> was not unbelievable:  My father has been trying to dissolve and recoup
|> his assets through Ugandan lawyers for years.  The only objection I had to
|> the movie was that it might have given the impression that there was social
|> interaction between the natives and the indians.  For the most part, I'm ashamed
|> 
|> 
|> to say the only interaction was that the indians hired natives as servants.


I tried to email to you, but it bounced.  Could you elaborate more
on why Asians were kicked out?  What did Idi Amin promise?  I know
he's know safely ensconced in Saudi Arabia.  Also, why were Indians
so well off financially?  

--Madhav Ponamgi
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: moh2@quads.uchicago.edu (Kateri/Mary Anne)
Subject: Re: Your Duty as an IA/American
Reply-To: moh2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:14:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.223637.20087@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh Yadav) writes:
>
> Personally, I am proud of every human who ever stood by his or her own 
> thought/conviction, regardless of where he or she was born/bred. The
> chinese who stood before the tank, the Andropovs who defied communists,
> the Keplers who chose exile, the Socrates who chose to drink the poison,
> the Joan of Arcs who prefered the stake, the Luther Kings who stood for
> the dreams....

The Nazis who fought for the glory of their homeland, the book burners
who try to protect their children, the KKK who follow their religion,
the Irish/Palestinians/Pakistanis/Israelis/South Africans (white and
black) fighting for their country, their race, the Crusaders who
murdered thousands for a religion that said, "Thou shalt not
kill".....

The scary thing is that all of these people fought for what they
believed in....and they really thought they were protecting
themselves, their families, their homes.....sigh...

>
>T.Y.
>----
>tyadav@athena.mit.edu

 - Amirthi
-- 
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.  One
path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.  The other to total
extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
						 - Woody Allen
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh Yadav)
Subject: Re: Your Duty as an IA/American
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:36:37 GMT

==================================
 mps1@cec1.wustl.edu (Mihir Pramod Shah) writes:
>In general, yes, you are right, there is much self-hatred on the part 
>of Indians going around, especially on the part of SOME IA's.  As an IA
>myself, I would like to stress to every II and IA that we should on the
>one hand be proud of our heritage and on the other hand present our culture
>and interact with mainstream American society.  Thank you.

 For once, could someone please tell, what these terms mean/imply:
  "our heritage"
  "our culture"
  "pride in heritage,"
  "present our culture," and 
  "self-hatred" 

 Personally, I am proud of every human who ever stood by his or her own 
 thought/conviction, regardless of where he or she was born/bred. The
 chinese who stood before the tank, the Andropovs who defied communists,
 the Keplers who chose exile, the Socrates who chose to drink the poison,
 the Joan of Arcs who prefered the stake, the Luther Kings who stood for
 the dreams....

 And therefore, would stress that every one should think independently,
 forget the heritage/culture drivel, and focus on what each one of us
 could/should be. 

 We are more than what the mirrors tell.

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
From: samaddar@siemens.com (Sumitro Samaddar)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: arranged marriages
Date: 4 Nov 92 22:48:28 GMT
Reply-To: samaddar@siemens.com

ahamad@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>what do u think of an arranged marriage

Actually, arranged marriages aren't usually done this way any more. The
parents of the groom/bride (to be) usually meet and talk to the bride/groom
first. If they think the bride/groom is good enough for their kid, they have
the groom/bride talk to each other. Sometimes all this "talk" is in the
presence of the parents. Often they also talk alone, though still in the
vicinity of parents. It is quite a constrained environment, but still it
lets the bride/groom know how the other one talks/walks/carries oneself. Some
even manage to talk about interests in life. You can think of it as a brief
constrained date. Sometimes more than 1 such "dates" are arranged. After these
brief "dates", the concerned people can call off the whole thing if they don't
have a good feeling about the other person. Agreed, it is not possible to
know about the "real" person in such brief encounters.

>I am talking about the situation about finding u'r self in the same room
>as that of a stranger right after marriage. I always thought that indian 

Believe it or not, most of the times the 2 persons involved are quite
eager about the encounter. Most of the times they are also nervous. But it is
not like a girl is thrown into a room with a stranger who is just waiting
to force himself upon her. The groom is probably going to be at his best
behavior to try to make a favorable impression on the bride. Like, in a date.
They don't have to do it on the first night. Like they don't have to do it
on a first date either. But, unlike a date, it is not so easy to back out
if this first night together doesn't work out well.

Sumitro
From: venu@cirrus.com (Venu Nayar)
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Subject: Re: Arranged Marriages and Wedding Nights...
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:53:53 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In <1992Nov7.001255.13636@athena.mit.edu> Preet (pghol@ctp.com) as
nergis@athena.mit.edu (Nergis Mavalvala) writes:  

>Alok (unwittingly, no doubt) brought up an important point
>that Indian women are "conditioned to expect sex"....just as
>they are "conditioned" to expect all the crapola they
>typically have to endure in a marriage (y'know, all the
>good stuff that half this group usually bemoans while the
>other half blissfully denies -- like producing
>kids for the khaandaan (household) while holding down a
>job and pandering to every whim of their husband and 
>his family, at the expense of sacrificing their 
>own goals and potential)

>That conditioning, IMO, is the "real" problem with arranged marriages.
>The arranged marriage market is a buyer's market, and
>in a sexist, male-dominated society such as India's,
>the buyers are all men (and their families). The sellers,
>"condition" their daughters from birth to be marketable
>commodities.

It is extermely annoying that todays feminists automatically assume (at
least in the tone) that *all* men support and condone what has been
described above. While what has been described by you, Preeti, is possibly
true (I cant say of my own knowledge since it wasn't true of the circles I
moved around in), I can't imagine that in today's world *all* men regardless
of backgrouund and circumstance support this. For example, I have a sister.
I consider it impertinence on your part, besides total crapola, to suggest
that everyone who has daughters are sellers in a commodity market. 

I (and my parents) expect my sister to pursue her career, and set about her
life in her own way. She is in not conditioned one way or the other; in fact
I can't imagine any part of her (except may be her hair) *being*
conditioned. If what she wants is an arranged marriage (and, in my family,
my mother would expect her to come and say straight out that that's what she
(my sister) wants, before anything is done), well, I guess my folks would go
about pursuing it. And after that, it would be my *sister's* choice and
decision.  

I know that this is an individual circumstance, but at least it is more
*honest* than unsupported generalisations.
-- 
Venu Nayar			|		Internet: venu@cirrus.com
Cirrus Logic Inc.		|		(510)-226-2100 X3737 
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat,
and wrong.
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Mix-Match
Followup-To: alt.culture.us.asian-indian
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:59:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.190648.29904@menudo.uh.edu>, mba2@Jane.UH.EDU
(Puneet_S) wrote:

> > culture we are being brought up in.  As such I would say "don't loose your
> roots", but at the same time spread your branches and embrace and understand
> where you are and the people around you.  --  Too philosophical maybe, but
> you sound very veniment towards "your" culture.

Not at all.  I am proud of my heritage and of calling myself Indian.  It is
only that some parts of my upbringing make me feel alienated.  That is why
I said:

> >Those parts of MY heritage that I prize and take pride in, I will pass on
> >to my children, regardless of whom I marry.  The rest may disappear.  I for
> >one will not take the loss too badly.

Anand's concern seemed only to be with the possible dilution of the gene
pool, as if there is a necessary relation between that and the endurance of
culture.  I disagree.  Where the spirit is strong, the roots will thrive;
if an individual does not have that spirit on his/her own, no marriage will
provide enough nourishment.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.culture.us.asian-indian