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!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!crystal!ravi From: ravi@crystal.UUCP Newsgroups: net.nlang.india Subject: Re: 'Jewel', British India, and us Message-ID: <419@crystal.UUCP> Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 23:58:03 EST Article-I.D.: crystal.419 Posted: Wed Mar 13 23:58:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 04:07:37 EST References: <374@sftri.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 57 > My first reaction on seeing them was horror and humiliation that my > countrymen and women had been subjected to such contempt and > treated like subhumans. In fact I wondered if the facts were > grossly distorted, as has often been the case in reports and movies > about India. I guess I had been conditioned by years of what might > charitably be called British P.R. (after all they had gotten to > write the history books and describe themselves as benevolent, if > firm patriarchal figures) and I found it almost impossible to > believe that such things had happened only 40 years ago. It was A friend of mine has a book (I saw it in 1976) that was used to be a textbook by the British in schools in India (God knows when), and which classifed some Indian communities roughly as follows: "Bengalees", it said, are diminutive people who are OK, except that they may not be trusted. "Mahrattas" were people who lived mainly in the hills, and were quite warlike and uncivilized. "Mohammedans" were something that was suitably subhuman (thank God I don't remember exactly what). And the book went on and on, with similar comments about the people from each region of the country it dealt with! We humans do have a tendency (history is replete with examples) of treating anyone who is not entirely like ourselves as somehow less than human. This manifests itself mildly when one hears ethnic jokes, and history has many passages where it has manifested itself much more strongly. The (in)famous natural historian Pliny was responsible for many myths about different communities survived for centuries. (He says in his books, for example, that India is inhabited by strange winged creatures that have no heads, and have their faces on their chests; they go about in droves and take off with a great flutter of wings if approached! He may also have been responsible for the myth that Jews have tails!) Not so long ago, "scientists" tried to establish using "anthropometric" techniques (mainly skull measurements) that certain races were superior to others (there is an excellent book by Stephen Jay Gould on this stuff called "The Mismeasure of Man"). The word "barbarian" is derived from the greek "barbaros" which means someone who speaks a foreign tongue (the Sanskrit equivalent, by the way, is "barbarah"); the Arabs classified people as "Arab" or "`Ajam" based on similar scientific principles. It's not just the British; it's all of us! Not much anyone can do about that really! But you are right, it is important to understand what has happened to us, and to have the right attitude. > colour-conscious people on earth.) To a greater or lesser extent, > we despise India, Indians and Indianness: there are many among us > who take pride in not speaking any Indian language well; and we > measure each other by our ability to speak English and by the > pucca-ness of our accents. We are in limbo, and I think we'll never > be truly comfortable anywhere: too Indian to be a good American, > and too Americanized to be a good Indian. Those who stay on here Not all of us, I hope! I do think there are many of us who are not totally alienated from our culture. Perhaps the kind of people who were into "doing" plays by Ionesco in college back home, and who could never give you a straight answer when you asked how the play could ever make sense to them. I also had a history teacher in school (in fifth grade; I remember her only for her attitude) who was very proud she couldn't pronounce "Kautilya" or the word "artha-shastra"; she always said "artha-shtra", and looked at you with disdain (she refused to be tainted by the vernacular) if you pronounced it right. But I do think there are lots of Indians who are not so far gone.