and yet you assert right here – “i doubt the sepoys who were commanded by eurasian or british officers were under any illusions. after all, there was a de facto and de jure caste system of command and commanded. in fact, the south indians and bengalis who won the early battles had to face the same sneers and contempt from the traditional muslim elite and the “martial races,” whom they whipped with european weapons and organization (the rebellion of 1859 of course led to the shift the british army toward more “loyal” races).”

and here “many high caste hindus and ashraf muslims were reputedly shocked and repelled by the fact that the british recruited untouchables as soldiers in some circumstances. the past is pretty complex, but i guess when we want to we can to we can brush all that away and just settle for white-colored dichotomies which fit our contemporary narratives well.”

“The same infantry participated in a minor rebellion in 1764, seven years after the Battle of Plassey, because the material promises the British had made to them had not been fulfilled .” – just goes to show that selling out is not such a good idea.

i know i’m not supplying links to support this argument but I haven’t written my autobiography yet, so there’s hope.

It was that Infantry which fought on the side of the British East India Company against the Nawab of Bengal’s forces and his French trained sepoys. It should be noted that both the English and the French hired and trained natives to fight on their behalf. None of the British accounts say anything about these sepoys being recruited exclusively from one community or another. They were essentially purchased mercenaries. The same infantry participated in a minor rebellion in 1764, seven years after the Battle of Plassey, because the material promises the British had made to them had not been fulfilled .

Many Britishers think that India was conquered by the Clives, Hastings, Coots and so on. Nothing can be a greater mistake. India was conquered by an army of Indians and the Indians who formed the army were all untouchables. British rule in India would have been impossible if the untouchables had not helped the British to conquer India. Take the Battle of Plassey which laid the beginning of British rule or the battle of Kirkee which completed the conquest of India. In both these fateful battles the soldiers who fought for the British were all untouchables…

well, the three are somewhat different. new agey moms are kind of pancultural dabblers. my point is that hare krishnas, whatever their race, are committed very deeply to a fundamental strain of brown/south asian culture, a sect of hinduism which grows out of the indigenous strains of indian religious expression. just because they are non-brown in racial and ancestral terms, there’s something fundamentally south asian in their cultural inheritance, which they presumably would pass on to their offspring. this is my experience with the few 2nd gen hare krishna kids i’ve met.

as for words, they should be instruments to greater understanding. i think a word like “brown” or “desi” does illuminate something fundamental about both a white hare krishna and an indian adoptee raised in spain. even if they’re not typical.

Are you thinking more Jai Uttals, 2nd/3rd gen Hare Krishnas and New Agey moms giving credence to “chakras” or a general ‘fan-club’ theory wherein interest expressed in whatever is all that is required for recognition as a member by both out and in-group? If there are no gate-keepers, as I think you and I agree is ideal, should we simply apply the words as often and as freely as possible? (i do.)

OK – regarding colonialism: Colonialism is not only the control of a people’s resources, human capital, but also of their pscyhe.