That pretentious bitch
Cerebral actress Nandita Das speaks about her latest film, “It is a small way of dispelling the myth and perception that Pakistan is our enemy. There is this whole idea tha t Pakistan is another country, but I don’t feel like an Indian living in Pakistan. In fact, to do a film in Malayalam and Tamil is in some ways more difficult than doing one in Pakistan.”
Speaking of which what exactly goat lover finds attractive in her. Now, I can understand if people are fascinate by superficiality and narcissism of pretend intellectuals, but, by God, she is so mind numbingly whining.
20 comments:
She is beautiful in spite of being dark skinned. Though I agree with you on the issue of pseudo-intellectualism.
Sorry for being a bit off-topic but I have similar issues with Rahul Bose - though I feel some "vibes of sincerity" in him.
@FiTW - Despite? So only fair skinned people are beautiful?
FiTW,
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Nandita Das is not beuatiful, she is freaking ugly, she is a bloody macaca.
Sakshiji,
Considering that beauty lies in eyes of beholder, a more accurate question will be Are only fair skinned people considered beautiful. To this Omega male evidence suggests that answer is yes.
Sakshi - I planned to write a post on fair skin and beauty but I don't know when I will get enthu to do that, so I will just say the following.
I think there are several reasons fair skinned people might seem more beautiful - higher contrast between skin color and hair/lips/( don't know if it is appropriate to mention that ) etc., more "regular" features among fair skinned races causing a correlation that at an unconscious level gets interpreted as causation, the "impression of cleanliness on appearance" etc.
@Gauravji
That explains why Omega male has such a poor success rate :D
@FiTW - I wonder how much of what you said is social conditioning. I hope you do write a post on it.
''higher contrast between skin color and hair/lips''
If the moron who writes this blog wasn't idiotic enough, now he seems to be assembling a team.
That is the about the most asinine comment I have read in a while. And I write street car. Despite that.
And dude Gaurav,
Fix your commenting system before I whip you.
FiTW, Sakshi,
I think fair is beautiful is more of social conditioning. However there might be some aesthetic involved to a certain extent.
Confused,
All right now you may think that the comment is wrong but why asinine, it is just a conjecture, do you have any better one. And what is wrong with the commenting system ??
Gaurav
Can you explain the impugned statement?
And because it asks me to do 20 things before I comment. Remove the word verification.
You suck. Blogger sucks.
Confused,
Re. statement.
1. It's a conjecture. We have a observation (fair is perceived to be beautiful), and we are trying to explain it. Take it easy will ya.
2. Even the conjecture is basically a upon of aesthetics. May be people find contrast attractive, may be they don't, one can disagree with other without calling other ass.
3. Stop trying to wreck my nice little blog.
4. Stop being so touchy. Admit that you are hideous. Get a freaking paper bag.
Re. Word verification.
It is there to prevent spamming. Unless you are a spammer wising to peddle viagra, I don't see why you should have any problem.
>>dispelling the myth and perception that Pakistan is our enemy
She means 'myth'?? Wow...good joke Ms.Nandita Das!
''Stop trying to wreck my nice little blog.''
ROFL! Dude, you have been doping again!. You suck.
Frogiji in his first comment said Nandita Das is beautiful despite being dark...so his so called conjecture is not an intellectual exercise--rather an explanation for his own beliefs.
Dude, let me forward a conjecture which makes far more sense:
These people are carrying the White man's burden. Fair is beautiful because India has never given up the worship of those who plundered her for 200 years. In fact, it is an intriguing relationship because Indians are so quick to take offense and yet latch on to every word of perceived approval or disapproval of his colonial masters. A society which has been intellectually subjugated is in a worse position than even a colonized one--at least, the latter may not have lost his capability for free thinking.
Confused : obviously dark skin and dark hair => lesser contrast because lesser difference in colors. In other words a particular feature, viz, hair; and similarly lips are better accentuated with fair skin. What is wrong with that argument other than that you arbitrarily choose to call it asinine? OTOH all you have done is dub it as all owing to one single reason - white man worship - and haven't given any reason as to why that has to be the reason - or a reason - at all.
OK, confused : I just noticed you have only given it as a conjecture. But still that your conjecture is arbitrary and mine is reasoned remains.
Social conditioning might have a role. But I have a feeling many are attributing it to social factors alone purely out of a love for political correctness. Somehow there is a feeling that calling fair skin more beautiful amounts to discriminating against those with dark skin. But why is such discrimination any worse than discrimination between the beautiful and the ugly?
Moreover I have come across people associating that with racism. For that I will invoke Ravikiran's classical connotation vs. denotation argument.
Alright guys, I have finally written that fair skin and beauty post. Your comments will be most welcome ( yes, you can call this cheap solicitation ) but pleas refrain from personal attacks.
Uff, this discussion calls for a comment, and hence I qill, despite the damaged eye.
Confused,
Let's go through this one step at a time. If I understand right from your comment, one of the implications of your theory would be that before the Brits ruled, Indians should have had no natural affinity or preference for fair skin. Right?
Ritwik, there were the mughals and before them were the aryans - all fair skinned, broad chested, sharp nosed people from central asia. That is why we are fixated on fair skin and are being racist.
(looks like i might have a career in Outlook or JNU post-retirement!)
Ahh Sriram, when you are that close to what I think may very well be the truth, you don't necessarily get a job with JNU or outlook.
Of course, I don't think a preference for fair skin (or asserting that there may be natural/prehistorical causes to such a preference) translates into either racism or fixation.
But confused's assertion has simplified the debate a lot. Now things are falsifiable and hence hypothesis-testable. All one needs to do is go back to some historic Indian texts and check why the devas were always fair while the asuras were dark. Or if any lead protagonists were equally likely to be fair or dark.
I am not sure about natural reasons, or if at all there are any, but I do think that we are not really intellectual slaves of the colonial era, but rather have been 'slaves' to the idea of fair skin being beautiful for much longer, at least 3000 years (if messrs romila thapar et al are to be believed) or at least 6000 odd years (if th Somnath trust's version of history is to be believed).
Of course, everyone has their own axe to grind on this. Confused went upto the Brit rule - many would have you believe that fair = bautiful is a L'Oreal invention. I tend to think that they are overestimating recent social conditioning.
Ritwik, one must test other civilizations that way too. As I quoted from wikipedia in my post such preferences were there in the Victorian society and are there in East Asia etc. Today Americans and other westerners, fearing for political correctness, may not even assess their own preferences regarding this seriously but may be some research is needed as to whether such a preference is actually there or not ( I remember seeing a survey which said there is, but don't know how much we can trust such surveys ).
Let me also mention that Krishna was dark, Rama was dark, Vishnu is dark, Draupadi is dark, Kali is dark. I am too lazy to dig up the reference, but I also remember seeing that when Hanuman reached Lanka, he went in search of Sita inside the palace, and saw a room where very attractive girls, both fair and dark were sleeping. So to talk of Indians alone as totally fixated with fair skin is unfair. The difference with Indians is that we have a bunch of self-hating liberals and libertarians.
I do suspect many of these politically correct dudes are hypocritically running away from examining their own preferences.
Ritwik, I might have stated the truth, but the key to landing a job in Outlook/JNU is to draw preposterous inferences from it - like racism, which I did.
I tend to agree with FiTW when he says it is unfair to single out Indians as being fixated with fair skin. I think there is some consensus across the globe as to what constitutes a pleasing color. It is neither albino white or pitch dark. It is somewhere in between. We, on the darker side of this color, use fairness creams while those on the fairer side of this color look go to tanning bars.
What's wrong with you guys ?
Post a Comment