>you could add the fact that the Colored population in SA
>includes descendents of South Asian and Indonesian slaves,
>but in any case, what about them? i mean, you could find
>white people as well who intermarried in africa or fought
>with the anc or whatever, but what would that really say
>about the wages of whiteness?

"wages of whiteness" - interesting term...heehee

>i think there are excellent reasons for africans to distrust
>south asians, and i think there are equally excellent
>reasons -- from indentured-labor era Trinidad to the
>anti-Indian calypsos of today, the social prejudices against
>coolies in the French Antilles, the riots in South Africa
>and Guyana, the expulsion from Uganda, the anti-Indian
>incitements in Kenya, dare i mention larme price and 9/11
>-- for the distrust to be returned.

i think it is perfectly fine to have distrust. it is important to know where it came from. for both sides. i find that for most part it comes from colonialism. i certainly also know the parts that south asians themselves are responsible for perpetuating oppression. and that is what that community is responsible for recognizing and fixing. same for other communities.


>i thought freddy mercury was a parsi?

hmm, i dunno. i remeber people making fun of him and pathans in pakistan...and the village he was from...but i might be wrong...

>>but if everyone else's blood is tainted and fucked up as a
>>group, (ignoring dissent, differences within each group like
>>you did), then arent u the same by the same logic?
>
>afairead him, he was talking about culture, not blood.
>
>i'm not arab, persian or indo-aryan, but if someone were to
>say that they found my culture gross, i don't think i would
>trouble myself to point out that we've done <whatever>. as
>long as they aren't making mendacious claims of solidarity,
>i have no problem with it.

the way yuckwheat put his argument, it certainly seemed like both blood and culture.

as i said before, i dont care if he finds me (or anything else) gross, stupid, dirty, etc.

BUT lumping different peoples into one group is problematic, when oppressed people in that group are struggling to fight the same oppression from within and from the outside.

SECONDLY, all groups of people in history have within them oppressive characters and oppressed. those who wish to perpetuate oppression and those that resist. those that promote hatred and those who oppose it. THIS DISCUSSION SEEMED TO BECOME ONE ABOUT WHO THE REAL INDIANS/whoever ARE? heehee...are the real indians the one who perpetue caste? so anti-caste people from india arent indian?

thats the problem with looking at groups in broad sweeps. saying indian peoples are casteist ignores and delegitimaizes ALL the efforts of indian people struggling against it.

same goes for other groups.

whats "mendacious?"