A Masala Dosa (not Dosai) to die for

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

I am most familiar with UP so I will tell u the caste nomenclature in UP. At the top are upper castes like Brahmins, Kshatriyas/Thakurs, Vaishya/Baniyas, Kayasthas and at the very bottom are the Dalits or sudras. But there are intermediate castes in between high caste and low caste hindus and these are the OBC's. In UP, the largest OBC caste is the Yadava caste followed by Kurmis. There are other smaller OBC castes like Lodh, etc.

In A.P most of the dalits in rural areas work as agricultural/day laborers, majority of these farming lands are owned by the so called upper caste communities. In most cases dalits do look up to them for advise because of their day-to-day interaction though those very communities are also the oppressors. Brahmins are no different either, What % of brahmins (especially in rural India) do you think will invite a non-brahmin let alone a dalit to their house for dinner or lunch?

"The disparity becomes more pronounced when we go to fertile and well developed South Coastal Andhra. Here the Reddys and Kammas constitute only 13.72% of the total households, (Basing on data collected from 24 villages) but the land they own is as much as 46.36% of the total land (i.e.) a mere 13.72% Reddy and Kamma households are owning nearly half of the total land of this fertile region. On the other side we find 32.92% (i.e.) nearly one third of the total households belonging to Mala and Madiga castes who own a mere 8.08% of the total land"

http://www.cpim.org/marxist/201202-Land-Inequalities-AP.pdf

You are being silly now. Only 1 % of AP's population comprises Brahmins and further the two big land owning castes in AP are reddys and kammas. In UP it is the OBC's and to a much lesser extent the Kshatriyas/thakurs who are the land owning castes. In Tamil Nadu it is the Goundars, Vanniyars, Thevars, and Nadars who are the biggest oppressors of Dalits and not Brahmins or Chettiars.

What's so silly about it; oppression doesn't occur only on farmlands; what about sideways screwing Max was alluding to. What percentage of 1% Telugu Brahmins do you think indulge in sideways screwing as opposed to front/back screwing by Reddys/Kammas.

Your analogy is flawed. Reddy and Kammas physically thrash, humiliate publicly or even kill Dalits in AP; Brahmins don't do that.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

In A.P most of the dalits in rural areas work as agricultural/day laborers, majority of these farming lands are owned by the so called upper caste communities. In most cases dalits do look up to them for advise because of their day-to-day interaction though those very communities are also the oppressors. Brahmins are no different either, What % of brahmins (especially in rural India) do you think will invite a non-brahmin let alone a dalit to their house for dinner or lunch?

"The disparity becomes more pronounced when we go to fertile and well developed South Coastal Andhra. Here the Reddys and Kammas constitute only 13.72% of the total households, (Basing on data collected from 24 villages) but the land they own is as much as 46.36% of the total land (i.e.) a mere 13.72% Reddy and Kamma households are owning nearly half of the total land of this fertile region. On the other side we find 32.92% (i.e.) nearly one third of the total households belonging to Mala and Madiga castes who own a mere 8.08% of the total land"

http://www.cpim.org/marxist/201202-Land-Inequalities-AP.pdf

You are being silly now. Only 1 % of AP's population comprises Brahmins and further the two big land owning castes in AP are reddys and kammas. In UP it is the OBC's and to a much lesser extent the Kshatriyas/thakurs who are the land owning castes. In Tamil Nadu it is the Goundars, Vanniyars, Thevars, and Nadars who are the biggest oppressors of Dalits and not Brahmins or Chettiars.

What's so silly about it; oppression doesn't occur only on farmlands; what about sideways screwing Max was alluding to. What percentage of 1% Telugu Brahmins do you think indulge in sideways screwing as opposed to front/back screwing by Reddys/Kammas.

Your analogy is flawed. Reddy and Kammas physically thrash, humiliate publicly or even kill Dalits in AP; Brahmins don't do that.

But they won't even let Dalits come near their houses; and Hindu customs/traditions including the ones of oppressive nature are brainchilds of brahmins.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

You are being silly now. Only 1 % of AP's population comprises Brahmins and further the two big land owning castes in AP are reddys and kammas. In UP it is the OBC's and to a much lesser extent the Kshatriyas/thakurs who are the land owning castes. In Tamil Nadu it is the Goundars, Vanniyars, Thevars, and Nadars who are the biggest oppressors of Dalits and not Brahmins or Chettiars.

What's so silly about it; oppression doesn't occur only on farmlands; what about sideways screwing Max was alluding to. What percentage of 1% Telugu Brahmins do you think indulge in sideways screwing as opposed to front/back screwing by Reddys/Kammas.

Your analogy is flawed. Reddy and Kammas physically thrash, humiliate publicly or even kill Dalits in AP; Brahmins don't do that.

But they won't even let Dalits come near their houses; and Hindu customs/traditions including the ones of oppressive nature are brainchilds of brahmins.

Your hatred for Brahmins is now shining through and they threaten to derail all the good fights u have so far put up on behalf of secularism. Brahmins of today cannot be blamed for what their Brahmin forefathers did just as Muslims of today, particularly Indian Muslims, cannot be blamed for the actions of Mohammad Ghori, Mahamud of Ghazni, etc. Further, Brahmins could only get their thoughts implemented with the full support of the Kshatriyas who were the rulers.

If some Brahmins prefer not to interact with or to minimize interaction with dalits it is their right (although I have personally never come across such a Brahmin in my life but I realize conditions could be different in the villages). It is like some white people or even Indian people never inviting black people to their home for dinner; that is also their right.

What is not acceptable is for Dalits to be thrashed and terrorized and killed, and for Dalit women to be raped. With very few exceptions Brahmins don't do any of this; it is the OBC hindus who do this.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
What's so silly about it; oppression doesn't occur only on farmlands; what about sideways screwing Max was alluding to. What percentage of 1% Telugu Brahmins do you think indulge in sideways screwing as opposed to front/back screwing by Reddys/Kammas.

Your analogy is flawed. Reddy and Kammas physically thrash, humiliate publicly or even kill Dalits in AP; Brahmins don't do that.

But they won't even let Dalits come near their houses; and Hindu customs/traditions including the ones of oppressive nature are brainchilds of brahmins.

Your hatred for Brahmins is now shining through and they threaten to derail all the good fights u have so far put up on behalf of secularism. Brahmins of today cannot be blamed for what their Brahmin forefathers did just as Muslims of today, particularly Indian Muslims, cannot be blamed for the actions of Mohammad Ghori, Mahamud of Ghazni, etc. Further, Brahmins could only get their thoughts implemented with the full support of the Kshatriyas who were the rulers.

If some Brahmins prefer not to interact with or to minimize interaction with dalits it is their right (although I have personally never come across such a Brahmin in my life but I realize conditions could be different in the villages). It is like some white people or even Indian people never inviting black people to their home for dinner; that is also their right.

What is not acceptable is for Dalits to be thrashed and terrorized and killed, and for Dalit women to be raped. With very few exceptions Brahmins don't do any of this; it is the OBC hindus who do this.

Hatred, really! I'm not holding present day Brahmin's responsible for oppressive customs rather giving historical perspective and saying that present day brahmins are as culpable, with their subtle ways of oppression, as any other caste hindu person.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Your analogy is flawed. Reddy and Kammas physically thrash, humiliate publicly or even kill Dalits in AP; Brahmins don't do that.

But they won't even let Dalits come near their houses; and Hindu customs/traditions including the ones of oppressive nature are brainchilds of brahmins.

Your hatred for Brahmins is now shining through and they threaten to derail all the good fights u have so far put up on behalf of secularism. Brahmins of today cannot be blamed for what their Brahmin forefathers did just as Muslims of today, particularly Indian Muslims, cannot be blamed for the actions of Mohammad Ghori, Mahamud of Ghazni, etc. Further, Brahmins could only get their thoughts implemented with the full support of the Kshatriyas who were the rulers.

If some Brahmins prefer not to interact with or to minimize interaction with dalits it is their right (although I have personally never come across such a Brahmin in my life but I realize conditions could be different in the villages). It is like some white people or even Indian people never inviting black people to their home for dinner; that is also their right.

What is not acceptable is for Dalits to be thrashed and terrorized and killed, and for Dalit women to be raped. With very few exceptions Brahmins don't do any of this; it is the OBC hindus who do this.

Hatred, really! I'm not holding present day Brahmin's responsible for oppressive customs rather giving historical perspective and saying that present day brahmins are as culpable, with their subtle ways of oppression, as any other caste hindu person.

Not inviting someone over to your house for dinner is as heinous as thrashing, killing or raping that person ? Thank you for that information.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
But they won't even let Dalits come near their houses; and Hindu customs/traditions including the ones of oppressive nature are brainchilds of brahmins.

Your hatred for Brahmins is now shining through and they threaten to derail all the good fights u have so far put up on behalf of secularism. Brahmins of today cannot be blamed for what their Brahmin forefathers did just as Muslims of today, particularly Indian Muslims, cannot be blamed for the actions of Mohammad Ghori, Mahamud of Ghazni, etc. Further, Brahmins could only get their thoughts implemented with the full support of the Kshatriyas who were the rulers.

If some Brahmins prefer not to interact with or to minimize interaction with dalits it is their right (although I have personally never come across such a Brahmin in my life but I realize conditions could be different in the villages). It is like some white people or even Indian people never inviting black people to their home for dinner; that is also their right.

What is not acceptable is for Dalits to be thrashed and terrorized and killed, and for Dalit women to be raped. With very few exceptions Brahmins don't do any of this; it is the OBC hindus who do this.

Hatred, really! I'm not holding present day Brahmin's responsible for oppressive customs rather giving historical perspective and saying that present day brahmins are as culpable, with their subtle ways of oppression, as any other caste hindu person.

Not inviting someone over to your house for dinner is as heinous as thrashing, killing or raping that person ? Thank you for that information.

If you think it is as simple as that then there is not much to debate. I can understand why you're getting all defensive.

Rishi wrote:Rashmun,

It happens sometimes the non-brahmin fellows guy whom you invite to your house will start bad mouthing brahmins and go on and on what brahmins did to them those days . They do that right there in your house and on your face.

Why even bother inviting them?

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Your hatred for Brahmins is now shining through and they threaten to derail all the good fights u have so far put up on behalf of secularism. Brahmins of today cannot be blamed for what their Brahmin forefathers did just as Muslims of today, particularly Indian Muslims, cannot be blamed for the actions of Mohammad Ghori, Mahamud of Ghazni, etc. Further, Brahmins could only get their thoughts implemented with the full support of the Kshatriyas who were the rulers.

If some Brahmins prefer not to interact with or to minimize interaction with dalits it is their right (although I have personally never come across such a Brahmin in my life but I realize conditions could be different in the villages). It is like some white people or even Indian people never inviting black people to their home for dinner; that is also their right.

What is not acceptable is for Dalits to be thrashed and terrorized and killed, and for Dalit women to be raped. With very few exceptions Brahmins don't do any of this; it is the OBC hindus who do this.

Hatred, really! I'm not holding present day Brahmin's responsible for oppressive customs rather giving historical perspective and saying that present day brahmins are as culpable, with their subtle ways of oppression, as any other caste hindu person.

Not inviting someone over to your house for dinner is as heinous as thrashing, killing or raping that person ? Thank you for that information.

If you think it is as simple as that then there is not much to debate. I can understand why you're getting all defensive.

There is nothing to be defensive about. You were the one who sought to equate "subtle" discrimination ( like not inviting someone home for dinner) with actual discrimination like killing, raping, thrashing, and terrorizing claiming that the two kinds of people are "as culpable" to use your words.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Hatred, really! I'm not holding present day Brahmin's responsible for oppressive customs rather giving historical perspective and saying that present day brahmins are as culpable, with their subtle ways of oppression, as any other caste hindu person.

Not inviting someone over to your house for dinner is as heinous as thrashing, killing or raping that person ? Thank you for that information.

If you think it is as simple as that then there is not much to debate. I can understand why you're getting all defensive.

There is nothing to be defensive about. You were the one who sought to equate "subtle" discrimination ( like not inviting someone home for dinner) with actual discrimination like killing, raping, thrashing, and terrorizing claiming that the two kinds of people are "as culpable" to use your words.

Actions might be different but the motive behind the discrimination, by both Brahmins & caste Hindus, is the same (lower strata of dalits). What I gave you was a small example, it is not the only kind of discrimination they indulge in. BTW, Telugu brahmins don't carry any baggage that Tambrams do, they've always been well respected so all the nonsense spouted by Rishi doesn't apply to Telugu Brahmins.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD -- to a large extent this also depends on which part of one's identity one feels closest to -- national, race, caste, linguistic, or professional. and this also varies depending on context. to me in discussions of the subcontinent, my linguistic identity plays a pre-eminent role and trumps the national and caste identity. for rishi this may be different. so not all tambrahms are conflicted and carry emotional scars.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD -- to a large extent this also depends on which part of one's identity one feels closest to -- national, race, caste, linguistic, or professional. and this also varies depending on context. to me in discussions of the subcontinent, my linguistic identity plays a pre-eminent role and trumps the national and caste identity. for rishi this may be different. so not all tambrahms are conflicted and carry emotional scars.

If I learn tamil will u start considering me as a fellow Tamilian?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:CD -- to a large extent this also depends on which part of one's identity one feels closest to -- national, race, caste, linguistic, or professional. and this also varies depending on context. to me in discussions of the subcontinent, my linguistic identity plays a pre-eminent role and trumps the national and caste identity. for rishi this may be different. so not all tambrahms are conflicted and carry emotional scars.

If I learn tamil will u start considering me as a fellow Tamilian?

of course! tamilians have long accepted g.u.pope and constanzo beschi as their own (google their names).

Rishi wrote:Rashmun,

It happens sometimes the non-brahmin fellows guy whom you invite to your house will start bad mouthing brahmins and go on and on what brahmins did to them those days . They do that right there in your house and on your face.

Why even bother inviting them?

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Not inviting someone over to your house for dinner is as heinous as thrashing, killing or raping that person ? Thank you for that information.

If you think it is as simple as that then there is not much to debate. I can understand why you're getting all defensive.

There is nothing to be defensive about. You were the one who sought to equate "subtle" discrimination ( like not inviting someone home for dinner) with actual discrimination like killing, raping, thrashing, and terrorizing claiming that the two kinds of people are "as culpable" to use your words.

Actions might be different but the motive behind the discrimination, by both Brahmins & caste Hindus, is the same (lower strata of dalits). What I gave you was a small example, it is not the only kind of discrimination they indulge in. BTW, Telugu brahmins don't carry any baggage that Tambrams do, they've always been well respected so all the nonsense spouted by Rishi doesn't apply to Telugu Brahmins.

So, since the motive is the same, not inviting a person over for dinner makes one "as culpable" (to use your own words) as thrashing, terrorizing, killing, and/or raping that person? Thanks for the clarification.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
If you think it is as simple as that then there is not much to debate. I can understand why you're getting all defensive.

There is nothing to be defensive about. You were the one who sought to equate "subtle" discrimination ( like not inviting someone home for dinner) with actual discrimination like killing, raping, thrashing, and terrorizing claiming that the two kinds of people are "as culpable" to use your words.

Actions might be different but the motive behind the discrimination, by both Brahmins & caste Hindus, is the same (lower strata of dalits). What I gave you was a small example, it is not the only kind of discrimination they indulge in. BTW, Telugu brahmins don't carry any baggage that Tambrams do, they've always been well respected so all the nonsense spouted by Rishi doesn't apply to Telugu Brahmins.

So, since the motive is the same, not inviting a person over for dinner makes one "as culpable" (to use your own words) as thrashing, terrorizing, killing, and/or raping that person? Thanks for the clarification.

Are you going to repeat the same line over and over with thanking me at the end for clarification. So your take is Brahmins have played no role nor indulge in oppression of dalits.

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

There is nothing to be defensive about. You were the one who sought to equate "subtle" discrimination ( like not inviting someone home for dinner) with actual discrimination like killing, raping, thrashing, and terrorizing claiming that the two kinds of people are "as culpable" to use your words.

Actions might be different but the motive behind the discrimination, by both Brahmins & caste Hindus, is the same (lower strata of dalits). What I gave you was a small example, it is not the only kind of discrimination they indulge in. BTW, Telugu brahmins don't carry any baggage that Tambrams do, they've always been well respected so all the nonsense spouted by Rishi doesn't apply to Telugu Brahmins.

So, since the motive is the same, not inviting a person over for dinner makes one "as culpable" (to use your own words) as thrashing, terrorizing, killing, and/or raping that person? Thanks for the clarification.

Are you going to repeat the same line over and over with thanking me at the end for clarification. So your take is Brahmins have played no role nor indulge in oppression of dalits.

When Mayawati had become CM of UP her vote bank consisted Muslims, Dalits, and Brahmins. She made some mistakes as CM because of which Brahmins and at least a section of Muslims deserted her because of which she lost. The point is that Brahmins were prepared to vote for her in large numbers, but not OBC hindus. What does this show?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
Actions might be different but the motive behind the discrimination, by both Brahmins & caste Hindus, is the same (lower strata of dalits). What I gave you was a small example, it is not the only kind of discrimination they indulge in. BTW, Telugu brahmins don't carry any baggage that Tambrams do, they've always been well respected so all the nonsense spouted by Rishi doesn't apply to Telugu Brahmins.

So, since the motive is the same, not inviting a person over for dinner makes one "as culpable" (to use your own words) as thrashing, terrorizing, killing, and/or raping that person? Thanks for the clarification.

Are you going to repeat the same line over and over with thanking me at the end for clarification. So your take is Brahmins have played no role nor indulge in oppression of dalits.

When Mayawati had become CM of UP her vote bank consisted Muslims, Dalits, and Brahmins. She made some mistakes as CM because of which Brahmins and at least a section of Muslims deserted her because of which she lost. The point is that Brahmins were prepared to vote for her in large numbers, but not OBC hindus. What does this show?

You're mixing political voting with social norms. There are many constituencies in the country that are designated as reserved for SC, do you think voting/electing SC candidate has changed people's attitude?

Kris wrote:

>>Maria,

 I take these kinds of advice with a grain of salt. 'You are a this' or 'you are a that, therefore...' usually comes from people who are stuck in a certain paradigm and assumes the recipient buys into things like group identity. In some cases, it is also just stuff people say because they feel they need to say something.  When I was leaving for the US, I went to say 'bye' to my uncle. He told me that I should behave in a way that people should think highly of our family. I couldn't figure out who in America knew my family to begin with.  

P.S. Happy Mother's Day! Remember you are a mother. People should speak highly of motherhood based on your behavior. Be on your best behavior today.

P.P.S. What is an 'inner manipulator'? I have to admit it exudes a certain coolness and has bumper sticker potential.

Maria S wrote:Posting a clip from Forrest Gump..on this Mother's Day. 


"That's all I have to say about that".