Racist? "Indians Only..."

Not necessarily racist considering how many people of different origins are capable of writing articles at a professional standard, maybe the person was looking for someone who could translate a piece of his work or possibly couldn't make the payment through PayPal to someone out of India. Not really racist, in fact I'd take that as a complement if people were looking for people who came from my country to write articles instead of for for example Chinese people or maybe British folks.

 

I can't believe this thread has continued as long as it has. Let's put a bit of sanity into the conversation...

From dictionary.com

In·di·an
   /ˈɪndiən/ Show Spelled[in-dee-uhn]
noun
1. Also called American Indian, Amerind, Amerindian, Native American. a member of the aboriginal people of America or of any of the aboriginal North or South American stocks, usually excluding the Eskimos.
2. any of the indigenous languages of the American Indians. Abbreviation: Ind
3. a member of any of the peoples native to or inhabiting India or the East Indies.
4. a citizen of the Republic of India.
5. Slang . a person who performs a required task or carries out the instructions of superiors: We have too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

They are using a correct term to describe someone who lives in a particular country. There is no racism in that. Nationalism, maybe, but certainly not racism. So what if they want someone who lives in a particular place? There are any number of reasons why they want to hire someone who lives in the country of India. I'm so sick to death of the word racism being used for every perceived slight where the people involved are of different national origins or skin tones. There are so many things in this world that truly are racist and this is not one of them.

I'm shocked the moderators haven't shut this thread down long ago. It was ridiculous when it started and continues to be so. If it had said only Kshatriyas need apply, then you might have had a case. But even then, they might have had a reason. Maybe they wanted articles about law enforcement.

Give it a rest already.

 

Nothing racist here. It is not disparaging another race. What they are offering for pay is probably so little that any non-indian would feel offended

 

You have made my point. The race is listed prior to the nationality. In English there is a BIG gap between those two, to the point that we usually say explicitly "from India" to mean the nationality.

You don't have to be a citizen of India to live in India. Point dismissed, easily.

Cries of shock and whining to have moderators shut down this thread make it sound like you are one who posts these sorts of ads.

You do not have to be a citizen of India to write on law enforcement, even if it is in India. Point dismissed, even more easily.

To simply say they might have had a reason concedes that no adequate one can be thought of.

It is a waste of everyone's time to say "Indians Only" rather than stating WHAT they are looking for. That is what makes it racist.

As every single post that has tried to invent some excuse has clearly pointed out, any excuse must point to particular skills or knowledge to justify itself. But, in fact, this does not justify the request for a certain race. Any of these can be met by people of other races. But if the person posting the ad does not say what he/she is looking for, but states only a certain race, they in fact are not advertising work. They are advertising favoritism in the form of racism.

 

Here is why your whole argument fails....

You have no idea why someone might have made a particular request to work with someone of a particular race, religion, nationality, etc. Without that knowledge of why they are making that request, it is just your personal speculation that it is racist in motivation. Your inability to think of any reason for someone to make the request seems to drive you to conclude nobody else can think of one so everyone making the request must be racist. The rest of us are not limited by your inability to justify the request.

There are many reasons someone might wish to work with someone from a particular country, race, or religion, and that alone does not denote any racist intent.

 

You posed a question and received dozens of responses from Indians and others who disagreed with your assessment of the situation. You asked us to "correct you if you're wrong." We did. Simple as that. Why not let it go and find a better battle to fight?

 

Oh, yes. Someone wants to hire someone of a certain race and exclude other races even if someone of the other race is qualified. This is not racist, is it?

No need to get personal YMC. You might want to take a breather. None of this here is meant as a personal attack on anyone. That is why I have not chosen one particular ad. That would be inappropriate. But for evidence, as I have said at least four times in this thread, look at the ads below. You are sure to find many such ads that match what we are discussing.

There were lame attempts to provide explanations, most of which had been posed in the first 7 posts. The fact that some keep repeating what's been said is due to these few not adequately reading the arguments so far.

IF a good reason to require a certain RACE is posed I will concede. So far, all the arguments are for skills and residence in a country. There have not even been any argued correctly for nationality.

The fact that there are some who cannot follow a simple argument, like "A language requirement does not necessitate a certain RACE or even a certain NATIONALITY, because other people in the world speak this language" reveals that they cannot grasp this straight forward reasoning. So it's like talking to a log (the kind that lies on the ground) with some people (not referring to YMC).

The number of times something is said does not improve its veracity. Whether it was said by Indians or not also does not prove its truthfulness. Whether someone else agrees or disagrees with my attempt to evaluate suggestions does not make the suggestion actually true or false.

As for your attempts to isolate and exclude the use of the term "from India" in contrast from "Native Americans", no one alive calls "Native Americans" "Indians" anymore, unless they are just out of touch with reality.

As for your quip on some great inside info on Indian culture, who cares. It is yet another irrelevancy that some are adding to this thread blowing smoke in our faces. Someone living in India may know this fact, but you wouldn't have to be Indian to, as you yourself have demonstrated. This puts the very point forward I have made from the beginning and have not seen ANY reason yet to change. There is nothing you could require for a writing job that would necessitate limiting the applicants to a certain race. This is the foundation of anti-racism and it is firm, rational, and as yet unbeaten.

I am asking that the advertisers quit favoring "Indians" as a race and open it to whoever has the skills or knowledge to complete the job. Now, of course this goes for other advertisers asking for other races, if you can find them.

I believe the most prevalent ads limiting nationality ask for "British writers only" or "American writers only". But these are not races. If these advertisers need perfect American English, they should say so, rather than the nationality. But I understand from those I have heard from over this (those who hire me) that many non-native speakers will think they have great English, when it is deplorable. Yet they will swamp the advertiser with requests to be considered for the job. There is the thought that if you are pushy enough the person will hire you, one of my Indian friends here in Poland explained this attitude to me. I don't know if it is common, but it is common enough to stand out in his mind and tell me.

Oh, and YMC, this thread is right on spot. It is all about Copywriting, in case you haven't noticed.

 

You are committing a logic error. You are adding the fact that persons of other races are qualified. They may be "qualified" in all other aspects but if there is a reason a person of a particular race or nationality is needed then, in fact, persons of other races would not be qualified. To prove your point, you are making an assumption which is the very thing at issue, namely that everyone of every race is qualified for every job and that race is never a factor that could be of importance without being racist.

All this thread demonstrates is your limited ability to think beyond your racist assumptions.

EXAMPLE:
I am making a site about the conflict in Kashmir for my English speaking American audience. One component of my site is writings form both Pakistanis and Indians where they speak of their hopes for the future as well as their fears. I have asked them to write from their unique point of view in several respects. I have Indians who are of various religions and I want the perspective of Muslim Indians as well as Hindu Indians and others as well. Likewise, I am seeking writings from Pakistanis who are Muslim and Pakistanis who are Christian to better understand their unique perspective on the issue.

According to your simple view I would be a racist for asking for an Indian writer or a Pakistani Muslim writer. You completely ignore that fact that for many writing projects, it is the writers unique personal background that makes them qualified and not just their ability to write in the English language. You completely discount that people may, because of their race, religion, or nationality, have very different perspectives to offer.

EXAMPLE:
I want to write about interfaith (or International) marriages. I want to have a writer who is involved in an interfaith marriage as they will have the experience to write about it first hand. I also want to get the perspective of Muslims and Jews (or Pakistanis and Indians) who have married and from those who have not, on the marriages of those that have. How am I to get the point of view from an Indian without asking for one?

 

People should be allowed to hire whoever they want based on whatever criteria they want, even if it is considered racist. But then it needs to be a double edged sword where I am allowed to place an add saying "Real estate writers wanted. Indians need not apply".

 

Was this thread not started to question forum policies as it relates to racism in the BST section? The fact that the buyer was requesting a writer is really irrelevant to your point.

As to the rest, browntwn gave you two great examples of when the race/religion/national origin do matter in a writer.

 

OK, I am looking for non Jewish white people to help write articles about their experiences travelling in Europe.

Sound ok to you?

 

Sure, why not?

 

Thank you browntwn! You are the first one to ACTUALLY think about the issue. By the way, all of the assumptions about my intentions and beliefs were unnecessary. That was a bit too far. I didn't ignore anything. In fact, I painstakingly replied to most of the posts here. It was not my job to think of the reasons why race might be needed in certain situations. That was the point of this forum for those participating in it. But unfortunately, too many proved unable to enter into the discussion, with vague aggressive statements about me being stupid and that there were reasons, but not offering any real ones.

Let me address one "logical error" you've made. Muslim is not a race, neither is Jewish (in opposition to Muslim). There are non-Jewish Jews. These are religions. So it is quite irrelevant to the discussion here. The parallel swap out with Pakistanis and Indians does not work. I understand the implication of Muslim / Hindu, but it still begs the same question where everyone else, so far, has failed. If it is about religious views, then it is not about race, since other races could provide that religious perspective. So that last example is bunk.

However, I am very interested in your first example. Are you not talking about nationalities, rather than races here? This is a political conflict between two nations. However, this is exactly where the line between nationality and race blurs, as in your second example. This might be why a country like the U.S. does not have the same kind of conflicts. The line between nationality and race is pretty strong - BECAUSE of our struggle o become anti-Racist.

But back to the example. I really like this example and I am very close to conceding over this. However, do you really think it is probable that all these "Indians Only" ads are looking for this sort of thing? I admit it is POSSIBLE, but I feel like it is not probable. There might be one or two. For example I was hired to write from an American perspective for just such a situation in your first example (in the Indian region of the world). They might have also hired an Indian for another particular cultural perspective. BUT now I come back to the same point. Is a certain culture limited to a certain race?

I was doing some studies in Helsinki and later at Lund, on language acquisition and integration by foreigners. One paper I read studied the children of Finnish immigrants into Sweden. These children were born in Sweden, but their parents had come from Finland as adults. Understand that all Finns must learn Swedish in school, because it is a second official language in Finland. So the parents already knew some Swedish. But the Swedish their children had learned, alongside Swedish children of Swedish parents, was different. These children spoke a different selection of Swedish from other kids. The culture was different for them as well.

Now let's imagine I am writing a project on this and I need Finnish people who have children that were born and raised in Sweden. Is this an issue of nationality or of race? Well, actually, it is nationality. There was no requirement to prove any certain genetic heritage. It was about people who were native speakers of Finnish (something very rare indeed - 5 million only), and who had the Finnish culture as their native culture. They had to be born in Finland too. However, there was no requirement necessary that they be of one certain genetic stock (race).

So asking for a certain perspective on a certain political conflict may be an issue of nationality. The limited example, but very good one, that you gave is also about nationality, not race. There is no requirement that the person be of a certain genetic stock to match the requirements of being able to give a first-hand perspective on some political conflict between two nations.

The issue of Black and White in America had extremely faint national ties to it, not strong enough to warrant addressing. It was about appearance and culture. All blacks, regardless of background, were grouped together. There were exceptions when certain blacks achieved fame status, like with Louis Armstrong or Nat King Cole. But they were ostracized and criticized by many other so-called "Blacks". Could they have provided a perspective from within the "Black Community" (this imaginary city of all Black people living together somewhere else)?

Aha, NOW we are thinking!!! What do you think about this applied to the "Indians Only" issue? I know a couple of Indians here on DP, who are very close to being Americans more than Indians. Here the terms are obviously referring to culture. If they applied for an "Indians Only" job they could get it, but if the advertiser wanted Indians who were INDIAN and not American, they would be gravely disappointed. So, again, I am back to my same point. Without clarifying what is actually needed in terms of skills or personal experience, this is a RACIST ad. So I am sorry. I really wanted to concede. Help me out browntwn!

This is clearly RACIST and should be penalized. No doubt.

This is a nice, terse example. I can imagine of a specific reason why too. Jews may have strong feelings about certain places or certain nationalities/races as they travel around Europe. Also, at least here in "Central Europe", there is still a LOT of anti-Semitism. I am shocked to meet with it even in younger people. They will claim they are not, but then make a very strong hate statement about Jews. They do not even see it. When I point it out they are livid and deny they are anti-Jewish. But eventually they concede and simply say that it is THEIR (the Jews') fault for being that way. Really! Hitler's program is anything but dead here in Europe.

So I can imagine asking for this. It is excluding a certain people, but the question of whether we are talking about race or nationality or religion, again is blurred. There is an historical event that targeted Jews as a cultural group, under the justification of racial cleansing, but it was not in practice about race. Hitler's program was about culture and race in practice. If you smelled like a Jew you were treated as a Jew. But this situation today of emotions connected with places in Europe and how you are treated in some parts, like Poland and Hungary, is the same. If you look and smell Jewish you will be treated this way. There are MANY MANY Poles who look and smell part Jewish, but when I ask people here, no one admits to being part Jewish. Everyone swears they are 100% Polish. It is clearly not true when you look at them. Now, am I making a racist judgment based on appearances? Is it fair? What does a Jewish person look like anyway?

The same is true about the article on travel in Europe. Not every Jewish person will meet with these assumed experiences or feel these imagined emotions. So why exclude Jewish people? We are back to the same question. Can you give me a reason that is CLEARLY a racial reason - one that is not confused with nationality or that cannot be met by simply stating what is ACTUALLY desired in the ad?

So as it stands, while this is a nice example, it turns out to have similar weaknesses. Why would the person need to limit it regarding race? If you can give an example of why that could not be met instead by simply stating what is being sought, then I can finally concede. PLEASE SOMEONE!!!

 

penalized? RACIST RACIST RACIST to the dungeon with you.

I think this section usually gets ignored by most moderators but if one comes by and takes the time to read any of this I think they will probably banish your "RACIST" thread to the political section.

 

If I am the moderator I would have deleted this thread long ago..

 

I had requested the OP to provide me with the url of the post in question, but he never obliged, else I'd have asked the poster the reason for that particular post.

 

Its not racism. lol

Racism is discriminating against a race, not lifting up a race.
Anyway, the reason the ad desired India people because as far as statistics show, people from India charge much less for their services. Its as simple as that.

LoL, now that is an example of a racist advertisement because it does discriminate against a race.

Seriously.......You guys should turn on the learning station from time to time.
The word racism is a basic concept. By any chance to the ones' who didn't know what it means from CANADA?
(Stone her! she's racist against Canadians!)

 

This is pretty surprising considering the reputation that Indians have when it comes to writing (all data taken from DP).

 

Are you really suggesting that saying "no blacks" is racist, but saying "whites only" is not?

You are trying to guess what is someone's motivation because of the way they phrase something, but you can't logically draw that conclusion.

History is replete with examples of trying to discriminate against one group by lifting everyone but that group.

 

No, I am not.
Saying "Whites only" is obviously pretty much saying "No other race". The whole thing is the reason? Why only Whites? Why. For example, I'm running a puppet show and I need the puppet masters to be dark colored for the stage, So I would say "ONLY BLACKS or dark skinned individuals, please!". Am I being racist? don't think so.