Yeah, relying on outdated racial typology for your labels is not such a good idea Mongoloid is hardly complimentary either, and Caucasian is more aptly expressed by “White” But I agree with you that these words and labels vary from country to country. Take “Asian” in the U.S. vs. “Asian” in the UK.

-s

color

aa iruppanguh”. Maybe someone can translate this better. Of course, this is quite “country”, not educated speech.

In Telugu, of course, “Nalla color” would mean something totally different, LOL. (Nalla=Black)

when I see the term “colored” used in India (where I’m from) it’s almost always to describe someone NOT fair

Would you like to hint about where this place might be. Sentences in pure English don’t count.

Wow thats news to me because when I see the term “colored” used in India (where I’m from) it’s almost always to describe someone NOT fair. When it’s someone light skinned it’s “FAIR” not “colored”.

In India, ‘negro’ is generally not known to be an offensive term for a black person and is considered simply descriptive and indeed, if the world didn’t carry so much historical baggage, “negro/negroid” would be in the same league as Caucasian/Mongoloid as non-judgemental terms.

I think TOI’s use of “colored boy” is learned foreign-speak from some outdated Western literature. In fact, in many parts of India, “colored”= “fair”= light skinned.

As for the rape analogy, I’m not totally sure, but most rapes occur between acquaintences and relatives, and not total strangers that see a “skimpy-dress”-clad woman and just have to have her.

Yes, but the second point was a perspective which was prevalent in the West as a way of (at least partially) blaming the victim until a few decades ago, and unfortunately such an attitude still exists in certain quarters of the subcontinent and in some other parts of the world too.

It draws attention away from the fact that, no matter how provocatively (or “differently”) the woman may be dressed or acting, there is still no excuse for anyone to attack her. People have to take responsibility for both their actions and reactions, and the fundamental flaw lies in the mentality and behaviour of the attackers, not the woman.

You can, of course, extrapolate this logic to the example of turbaned/bearded Sikhs. As follows:

1. Their appearance is deemed offensive and even inflammatory by some people, due to recent world events.
2. The Sikhs concerned should make a judgement call on whether they should place themselves in an environment if they know beforehand that their appearance will elicit a negative reaction from some people.
3. But that raises the question of whether their appearance really is “inflammatory”, and if the offended parties are really justified in reacting so adversely to it and even attacking the Sikhs concerned as a result.
4. So that further raises the question of whether the attackers really have a logical and ethical basis for their behaviour and, of course, that the fault fundamentally lies with them. Especially when you bear in mind that a) this is a severe case of mistaken identity, and b) the 5Ks are not representative of the Taliban but of the Khalsa, which involves far more noble and humanitarian ideals.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that, as TheKingSingh stated in post #99, the outer symbols are non-negotiable for committed Sikhs and especially those who are baptised/Amritdhari.

The attacker was also lucky that he was not killed (or at least severely injured) by his target during the physical struggle; along with the spiritual aspects, traditionally (and especially historically) devout Sikhs are also encouraged to be skilled in martial arts — both armed and unarmed combat — to be used only in self-defence to incapacitate any attacker, along with situations requiring the defence of any vulnerable/innocent third-parties. I don’t know if Iqbal Singh has had such training or even if he had sufficient time to react, but there are plenty of Sikhs that it would be a very bad idea indeed for a would-be murderer to attempt to pick on.

True, but then a lot of other criminal acts can be included as well: robbery, murder, etc.. I didn’t know A N N A drew a comparison, I was more responding to comment#124.

The point you’re making seems to be that the two situations are not identical. But who would say they were?

Surely you’re not saying they have no points of comparison: they are both acts of aggression, perpetrators tend to pick their targets based on appearance, reasonable people find this kind of targeting reprehensible…

In other words, racist attacks are similar to rape in some ways, and dissimilar in certain other ways. Anna was drawing attention to the similarities.

Please don’t be like those folks who insist, contrary to all evidence and experience, that apples cannot be compared to oranges.

I don’t see the parallel. If the style of dress makes you a higher target for racist violence (however illogical and immoral that is, it’s still a world reality that should be acknowledged) from a practical point of view, there are two options, stop dressing that way, or spend the time and money to educate those around you that… turbans do not equal taliban.

As for the rape analogy, I’m not totally sure, but most rapes occur between acquaintences and relatives, and not total strangers that see a “skimpy-dress”-clad woman and just have to have her.

Apologies, I forgot to post the link to the Times article: Here it is.