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: India and the Media
Message-ID: <415@crystal.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 11:09:09 EST
Article-I.D.: crystal.415
Posted: Tue Mar 12 11:09:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 01:46:56 EST
References: <2440@hplabsc.UUCP> <197@gitpyr.UUCP> <409@crystal.UUCP> <1304@sunybcs.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 52

> > 
> > Indians definitely have a far better perception of the USA than Americans 
> > have of us (educated Indians, that is; if you must bring up the question of 
> > illiterate Indians, then I suggest you compare them to illiterate 
> > Americans).  The reason is simply that we hear more about the USA than the
> > .....etc... 
>
>   I don't have anything to say about the above statement, but I do get
>   irritated by its premise.  The reason you can use statistics about
>   American life is because they are compiled !......etc..
>   .......
>   we were brought up.  Compare that to a society like the US where
>   every statistic is not only collected but made public, and maybe you'll
>   be more objective.

What are we supposed to be "objective" about? Your concern seems to be to 
decide who or which society is "better"!  Even to show that the Indian sytem 
is inferior in comparison to others.  My point is simply that arguments of 
the sort you are putting forth are meaningless: Every society has its 
evils/shortcomings.  No Indian can claim that our system (social/political) 
is faultless.  Neither can anyone from any other place in the world.  So why 
pick out India and somehow suggest that things out there are terrible and we 
ought to be ashamed to show our faces to the world?  My point is simply that 
if we heard only about crime and other problems in this society, we would 
have a very negative and unfair image of the US.  We have a balanced image of 
this country because we DO know about all the good that exists here.  
If Indians can't view India in the proper perspective, who can?

> 
> 
> > Sure, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin Roosevelt.  They of course, were
> > properly elected.  Nehru, Indira, and Rajiv, for some reason, were not.  When
> > the Kennedy mystique gets votes, is what is happening any different from what
> > happens when a corresponding thing happens back home?
> 
>   You just dug a hole for yourself, my friend.  Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt
>   just happened to be second cousins.  That's a far cry from a father -
>   daughter - grandson lineage.
>   And what Kennedy mystique are you talking about ?  JFK just barely managed
>   to defeat Nixon in the 1960 elections.  As a matter of fact it was one of
>   the most closely fought US Presidential elections.   Whether Bob Kennedy 
>   would have won or not is largely an academic question.  And Teddy Kennedy
>   is popular ?  You must be kidding !
> 
>   Kulbir Arora

One Roosevelt wasn't elected because he was related to the other; neither was
Indira elected because she was Nehru's daughter.  (Remember Kamaraj and the
"Syndicate"?)  Rajiv clearly benefited from the "sympathy vote" after Indira's 
assasination.  Whether he would have won without the "sympathy vote" (i.e. if
she had died a natural death, or lost, like in '77) is, like the Bobby Kennedy
issue, an academic question.  My feeling is that he wouldn't.  You may differ.