Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site crystal.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!ravi
From: ravi@crystal.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india
Subject: Re: Re: indians in the US
Message-ID: <416@crystal.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 11:23:35 EST
Article-I.D.: crystal.416
Posted: Tue Mar 12 11:23:35 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 01:46:16 EST
References: <1276@ut-sally.UUCP> <412@crystal.UUCP> <1305@sunybcs.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 29

> > 
> > Good idea!  However, in the hope of first provoking some more discussion on 
> > our attitudes here, I would like to bring up again the question of what our
> > self-perceptions are.
> > 
> > It occurs to me that our attitudes may very roughly be grouped into three
> > categories (or in some cases, even three stages).  These seem manifest most 
> > clearly in our attitudes to the media coverage of India.
> 
>   What good are such categorizations ?  Why are you trying to impose a
>   structure on a domain where there is none ?  Such meaningless taxonomies
>   are the basis of rabid generalizations which most of us tend to make.
>   You have no basis, except your limited exposure to some Indians, to come
>   up with such theories.  
>   The question is not to find out which 'type' an Indian belongs to.  The
>   question is to discuss and find out WHY we feel that the media is unfair
>   to India ?  Note that I do not even presuppose the case that the media
>   IS unfair.  In the process of answering the first question the second
>   will be taken care of.
> 
>   Kulbir Arora

I suggest you re-read my earlier message.  The suggestion wasn't that there
is a "structure" on the Indian domain.  Nor was I propounding a theory of
"types" for Indians.  To discuss the question of why we feel the media is
unfair, we must first discuss our own attitudes and feelings.  I went to some
trouble in my message to explain that this is not a rigid systems of
categories; they were general impressions meant to serve as a starting point
for further discussion.