Comments

1. Tarah Sweeney wrote:

   Ai tog. How I’d love to say something interesting on this subject.

   Some small part of me find it difficult to believe that someone can do that; another bigger part of me feels the pain this woman suffered.

   It must’ve really riled her up. But, eish, I would’ve set fire to him, not to myself.

   Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 6:59 am ¶

2. Roxie wrote:

   The amount of denial and colonialism apologists in that thread is really alarming!

   It’s like people will say ANYTHING to not recognize their white privilege. They’ll go back thousands of years of talk about how Egypt had slaves! And the north Indians had skin prejudices too and English colonialism had NOTHING to do with it is today! And how my super white skin is actually a not a privilege b/c I can’t tan! And “how can you possibly conflate the lack of models of color not being used to case of self hate like this? It’s impossible!!”

   You have GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME.

   Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 9:04 am ¶

3. marge twain wrote:

   The comments on Jezebel mainly focus on white people’s own experience here with the pressure to be tan b/c they think it’s analogous to what Indian women go through(and yes it’s largely women who bear the burden of colorism, who literally have a price put on their ownership)

   Historically, the English exploited the existing colorism, religious, and caste divisions, but I have encountered many Americans who think it began there. It has precedence in mythology and was reinforced by the Muslim rulers as well as the Aryan invasion of the subcontinent 5000 years ago. Still today, higher caste people tend to be lighter and there is significant discrimination on the basis of color. The government gives the Harijans(lowest caste) legal protection against discrimination and there is some overlap there.

   There is much about the colonial era that Indians have rejected and there is a lot of pride in culture and history which is why it is a hard job for leftist activists to change the fairness preference. The court’s ruling doesn’t surprise me at all.

   Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 12:16 pm ¶

4. meep wrote:

   I feel as though I am the only one troubled that this man is being sent to prison for two years for what amount to WORDS.

   I agree that what he said was hurtful to her.

   I am alarmed that being called “too dark” inspires so much pain for people in India– that internalized racism is this extreme. I am REALLY troubled that the court ruled that being called black amounted to “severe mental torture”– thereby reifying the idea that blackness is somehow bad.

   But good lord, this man did not pour the gasoline over his wife. He did not hand her the match. She CHOSE her fate. The Jezzies are falling all over themselves condemning him and calling for a longer sentence (more cultural imperialism if you ask me).

   How would this play if it happened in the U.S.? What if we started looking to prosecute the friends and family of those who committed suicide here? Since when does verbal abuse warrant incarceration?

   Posted 08 Apr 2008 at 10:27 pm ¶

5. Curlyscales wrote:

   @meep
   I kinda agree with you there because the message that is being sent seems sinister, to say the least. I remember watching a documentary about life in Puerto Rico and there was this man who kept saying that he was the darkest out of the bunch and “oh how he was so much darker than his siblings and cousins” and all I could think was, “Jesus Christ either grow some fuzz on your kiwis or eat a bullet but stop it all ready.”

   Posted 10 Apr 2008 at 9:40 pm ¶