Indians For Guns

Agree with Winnie and others violence cant be justified and there always are idiots and bigots in all the societies and some times issues are misreported...There are more than enough bigotry and racism instances within India , isnt it racist when folks from certain part of India attacked and even raped that too in the capital in Delhi ; how about Caste based fights and killings. World in general is getting smaller and sometimes more xenophobic, nationalistic jingoism prevails and then misplaced perceived threats from the outsiders..

Just some instances/examples to expand on what ngrewal and eljefe have pointed out

1.Depiction of Africans/Negros(hapshis) on Indian television/films

2.Depiction of tribals on TV and in films

3.How about all those 'fair and lovely' adds including for men.A girl/man is dark and is upset but after applying a cream becomes fairer within XX days and is depicted as having become more attractive.

4.Treatment towards people from the NE in the North.How would they feel being called chinkies/Chinnie/Nepali?

5.The pawing of women foreign tourists at airports/railway stations/tourist destinations and the cheating and harassment meted out to them.Off course they are all ready for 'it'.

How about a look at the loutish behaviour of some of the Indian 'students' in Australia?

They will keep getting beaten up if they don’t stop selling chavanprash as a Kama sutra Aphrodisiac to white ozzies.

IFG Brothers: I've been following this thread. I admit, one of my real hot button items is racism. I believe that racism is not racist: every tribe and nation practices it. It's applicable to everyone who puts their pants on one leg at a time. Those of us who recognize this horrible evil for what it is, a human blight, tend to be careful about not succumbing to its practice.

I think it is something we always have to be on guard against.

Consider my country, the USA, often called a bastion of freedom and democracy: This foul idea of racism is enshrined right at the beginning of our Constitution, in Article 1 Section 2: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." This, of course, refers to African American slaves. The slave owners didn't want to let them vote, but they wanted representation based on their existence -- valued at 3/5ths of a man. Is that not obscene?

One of the most eloquent of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, had relations with his teen slave and fathered a child by her, his own flesh and blood, which he left in slavery. My opinion is that someone would have to be some kind of racist to leave their own flesh and blood in slavery because of their skin color.

Over here in the USA, people get pretty mad when I point these things out, and that is the problem. The issue is, we need to accept that they went on and that we are all liable to practice them, in order to stamp out the pernicious practice whenever, where ever, and by who ever, it is done.

Navi is 100% right when he says: "violence cant be justified and there always are idiots and bigots in all the societies"

Those "fair and lovely" things really irk me as well. I know someone quite well who is sensitive about this very issue and (probably like many others) has dabbled with such "snake oils." I doubt that stuff can be very healthy for anyone! And the worst of it all is that this person, like so many, looks just great, naturally!

Here in the USA, there is a preponderance of newscasters and such who are the skinny blond types. I get tired of that. Matter of fact, when I traveled to Europe, I used to think how nice it was back in the USA where I could see lots of people of many colors and features. Everyone has their own preference, but for me, I love the mix of peoples of all kinds. That's one of the best things about the USA, except for New Mexico, of course.

One thing I've always looked forward to is coming to India and seeing many kinds of people. Some day, I really hope to get there and visit you all. Grab up an air gun or something and have a great day shooting.

I'm sorry for rambling. I really hate that racism stuff. You'd think that, after all of these centuries, we would have learned better.

one thing i have noticed is that when it is the white against others the tag of racist attacks is given, even if there is noting racist in it. muggers do not care who they mug wither white purple or pink as long as they are easy to mug.

on the other hand if a person who displays a racist attitude and attacks someone of different race that is called racist. Also racism comes in many form.

Racism in NEW DELHI: Nigerian nationals beaten up by angry locals in Ambedkar Nagar

Source: Times of India

But the allegation against their community that they eat children has hurt them the most. We dont eat children. One has to be insane to say something like this, said Francis, a Nigerian national, who stays in the building where the incident took place.

Regards

lets sort out India before we go and sort out the world on this issue

UK's crime rate is highest in the World (2034 per 100,000)
Australia's crime rate is lowest in the World (92 per 100,000)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

There is something terribly wrong with Indians attitude in Australia.

maybe but no racist crime reported so that means no racism in the UK, hip hip ooray to UK

m24 wrote:Without knowing the full details about any attack, to call it racial would be highly prejudicial. We can't always go by what the Indian media is reporting. They just give one side of the story. Always have the open mind to listen to the other side also.

winnie_the_pooh wrote:The behavior of some of of the Indians in Australia is not something to be proud of,though this in no way justifies any sort of violence.

-- Sun Aug 22, 2010 12:09 --

known wrote:UK's crime rate is highest in the World (2034 per 100,000)
Australia's crime rate is lowest in the World (92 per 100,000)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

There is something terribly wrong with Indians attitude in Australia.

Aah, that is a good one .. !!
I can use it, UK with strictest gun control has highest crime rates while Australia with not so strict laws comparably has lowest crime rate.
It may not imply a strong connection of more guns less crime but sure breaks the myth of less guns less crime.

Sorry for going off the topic here

known wrote:UK's crime rate is highest in the World (2034 per 100,000)
Australia's crime rate is lowest in the World (92 per 100,000)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

There is something terribly wrong with Indians attitude in Australia.

Aah, that is a good one .. !!
I can use it, UK with strictest gun control has highest crime rates while Australia with not so strict laws comparably has lowest crime rate.
It may not imply a strong connection of more guns less crime but sure breaks the myth of less guns less crime.

Sorry for going off the topic here

You would be hard-pressed to find a Swiss home without a firearm and ammunition. Yet, the Swiss have a very low crime rate.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese463.html

known wrote:UK's crime rate is highest in the World (2034 per 100,000)
Australia's crime rate is lowest in the World (92 per 100,000)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

There is something terribly wrong with Indians attitude in Australia.

Aah, that is a good one .. !!
I can use it, UK with strictest gun control has highest crime rates while Australia with not so strict laws comparably has lowest crime rate.
It may not imply a strong connection of more guns less crime but sure breaks the myth of less guns less crime.

We have to be really careful to make judgments like that or we would be guilty of manipulating data like the anti's commonly do.
Whose statistics do we believe?
The Daily Mail says that Australia has 92 crimes per 100,000
however, this website citing some impressive sources, says that almost one in every three Australians is a victim of crime.
It also ranks Australia as number one for total crimes (over the UK).
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_t ... al-victims
Australia now (since 1996) has strict gun laws but there really isn't any way to statistically prove that "less guns=more crime" or "less guns=less crime" in their case. For the most part it looks like trends have continued at pre-1996 levels (at least for firearm deaths and firearm-suicide deaths) and the banning of so many weapons didn't make any significant changes to the gun death rates.

India doesn't make the list. Why is that? Are there really fewer crimes per 100,000 or are there a large percentage of crimes going unreported or are the relevant statistics not kept?
I sure don't know.

hmm .. I got the point .. then the stats of internationally recognized organizations could be accurate .. like we have WHO and world bank for the respective agendas.

Virendra, please don’t misunderstand me, I wasn’t chastising you. I was just trying to caution you from making an assumption without data to back it up. If your assumption gets challenged, you need to be able to produce a creditable source to back it up.

Oh there's nothing to mind man, I thought their stats could be trusted. But you're right, I need to be cautious.