What's new

[PICTURE] Indian couple trolled over skin colour after wedding video goes viral

While all religions are against racism, Islam makes a specific point on this. In his last sermon, the Prophet SAW said that Arabs are not better than non-Arabs and vice versa. Hazrat Bilal, a black Abyssinian was honoured with doing the Azaan, a high status.

The Arabs in the Middle East are racist not because of the colour of skin as there are many dark Arabs in Saudi, etc. but rather because of wealth and country status. Again, this is highly discouraged in Islam.
 
Ask yourself this and answer -- Believing in a random anonymous user called sweep_shot in a forum is more reliable than wikipedia according to you?

And ... you wonder why we wonder if you are some PIND in Bangladesh or maybe you are an Indian troll masquerading this way to bring disrepute to so many of us Pakistanis looking for good quality posts here.

FYI - Putting hash tags under messages is an outdated 2010s style.
#RickrollTheIndianThinksImPindInBangladesh/India


rickroll knows nothing
 
If this is the stance then the positioning in your post should be along the lines of "It is OUR problem" and not along the lines of "We inherited this from India". If you believe Pakistani culture reflects Indian culture then this problem is also endemic within Pakistani society and the messaging should not be a subtle alluding along the lines of "We got this from India".

I don't know if you read my post correctly, but I specifically said in the post you quoted that that I was not born or raised in Pakistan and I don't live there. So why would it be "OUR problem" or "WE inherited this from India"?

I gave the viewpoint of a British observer that Pakistan seems to have inherited the racial bias from India which was in place long before Pakistan was even in existence. I am not excusing Pakistan, I am just saying despite taking on an Islamic mantle, the cultural norms and bias still seems to reflect Bharati outlook.
 
While all religions are against racism, Islam makes a specific point on this. In his last sermon, the Prophet SAW said that Arabs are not better than non-Arabs and vice versa. Hazrat Bilal, a black Abyssinian was honoured with doing the Azaan, a high status.

The Arabs in the Middle East are racist not because of the colour of skin as there are many dark Arabs in Saudi, etc. but rather because of wealth and country status. Again, this is highly discouraged in Islam.

Hinduism has caste system if I am not wrong.

Castes are as racist as it gets.
 
While all religions are against racism, Islam makes a specific point on this. In his last sermon, the Prophet SAW said that Arabs are not better than non-Arabs and vice versa. Hazrat Bilal, a black Abyssinian was honoured with doing the Azaan, a high status.

The Arabs in the Middle East are racist not because of the colour of skin as there are many dark Arabs in Saudi, etc. but rather because of wealth and country status. Again, this is highly discouraged in Islam.
Same with Nanak Dev ji. Krishna in Gita. They all preach the same. Treat people by their deeds. Not by their looks. What people practice is different.

Slavery was common in Arabia. It was only banned in 1960’s and in some Arab countries in 1980’s. No matter what Islam teaches, Slaves were common since the inception of Islam.👍
 
Same with Nanak Dev ji. Krishna in Gita. They all preach the same. Treat people by their deeds. Not by their looks. What people practice is different.

Slavery was common in Arabia. It was only banned in 1960’s and in some Arab countries in 1980’s. No matter what Islam teaches, Slaves were common since the inception of Islam.👍
Islam did not introduce slavery; rather, it confronted an entrenched global institution and sought to dismantle it gradually. The Prophet Muhammad SAW severely restricted the sources of slavery, closing all common avenues through which people had previously been enslaved, such as kidnapping, debt bondage, and forced servitude.

Those who were already enslaved at the advent of Islam were not abruptly expelled into society, which would have caused social collapse, but were instead given clear, structured paths to freedom. Freeing slaves was repeatedly encouraged and linked to acts of worship, moral excellence, and expiation for sins.

The only remaining source of enslavement was prisoners of war, and even this was tightly regulated. Islam forbade initiating war and permitted fighting only in self-defense or against aggression. Even in such cases, captives could be released freely, ransomed, or integrated into society; enslavement was one option among several, not an obligation.

This ethical framework was largely upheld during the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Rashidun). However, in later periods, particularly under the Umayyad and subsequent dynasties, political expansion, economic interests, and imperial practices led to a significant departure from the Prophetic model. Slavery expanded again in scale and practice, reflecting historical and political realities rather than the moral trajectory established by Islam.
 
#RickrollTheIndianThinksImPindInBangladesh/India


rickroll knows nothing
You never answered my question -- Believing in a random anonymous user in a forum is more reliable than wikipedia according to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know if you read my post correctly, but I specifically said in the post you quoted that that I was not born or raised in Pakistan and I don't live there. So why would it be "OUR problem" or "WE inherited this from India"?

I gave the viewpoint of a British observer that Pakistan seems to have inherited the racial bias from India which was in place long before Pakistan was even in existence. I am not excusing Pakistan, I am just saying despite taking on an Islamic mantle, the cultural norms and bias still seems to reflect Bharati outlook.
Because culturally you and I are South Asians (labeling it as South Asian instead of Pakistani since you stated that you do not believe in a unique Pakistani culture). I was born in the US, can only speak with an American accent (even though I spent few years of my childhood in Pakistan), most of my extended family in California but my family culture is a Pakistani/South Asian culture and not a white European culture or African American culture endemic in the US.

I would say the same is the case for you as well even though you are born in UK and are a British national? Our citizenship/nationality (by birth or naturalization) may not be the same as our culture especially when in a country with a diverse culture, right? There are British Asians, White Brits, British South Asians, British West Indians and much more each with their own unique cultural norms and together making up the wonderful country of UK.

Given the truth in the above bolded part and given we are speaking about culture and not nationality, your Pakistani/South Asian cultural origin is the one at play for this discussion (so is mine) and not your nationality because we are speaking about cultural norms of South Asians worldwide regardless of their country of residence or status of residency. So for both of us, South Asian colorism is OUR problem and not theirs. Our kids (assuming you also are a parent) are as much susceptible to South Asian colorism as some kid in Pakistan/India. When it comes to the intra-South Asian colorism problem, we (and our kids) probably have more in common with a random kid in South Asia than their white/black school/work peer, so it is OUR problem for sure.

"I am just saying despite taking on an Islamic mantle, the cultural norms and bias still seems to reflect Bharati outlook." -- Being Islamic unfortunately does not guarantee the positive attributes of Islam these days. Given that most of colorism is also influenced by colonialism, I would argue that religion is not as big a factor here as some people claim.
 
You never answered my question -- Believing in a random anonymous user in a forum is more reliable than wikipedia according to you?
ive been on this forum for along time, i know who to trust, you keep trying to read wikipedia = cant believe you think wikipedia is deemed as factual.


btw i dont trust you
 
ive been on this forum for along time, i know who to trust, you keep trying to read wikipedia = cant believe you think wikipedia is deemed as factual.


btw i dont trust you
Still not answering my question and resorting to pointless digressions -- Believing in a random anonymous user in a forum is more reliable than wikipedia according to you?
 
Still not answering my question and resorting to pointless digressions -- Believing in a random anonymous user in a forum is more reliable than wikipedia according to you?
rickroll - ive answered your question, your just not all thr - thats your fault, even sweep_shot agreed with me, he understood me fine,

like i said thrs something wrong with you,

if you cant figure it out - then go on wikipedia :ROFLMAO:
 
ive been on this forum for along time, i know who to trust, you keep trying to read wikipedia = cant believe you think wikipedia is deemed as factual.


btw i dont trust you
Forgive his ignorance he didn't know TikTok is most factual site that your grace uses.
 
Because culturally you and I are South Asians (labeling it as South Asian instead of Pakistani since you stated that you do not believe in a unique Pakistani culture). I was born in the US, can only speak with an American accent (even though I spent few years of my childhood in Pakistan), most of my extended family in California but my family culture is a Pakistani/South Asian culture and not a white European culture or African American culture endemic in the US.

I would say the same is the case for you as well even though you are born in UK and are a British national? Our citizenship/nationality (by birth or naturalization) may not be the same as our culture especially when in a country with a diverse culture, right? There are British Asians, White Brits, British South Asians, British West Indians and much more each with their own unique cultural norms and together making up the wonderful country of UK.

Given the truth in the above bolded part and given we are speaking about culture and not nationality, your Pakistani/South Asian cultural origin is the one at play for this discussion (so is mine) and not your nationality because we are speaking about cultural norms of South Asians worldwide regardless of their country of residence or status of residency. So for both of us, South Asian colorism is OUR problem and not theirs. Our kids (assuming you also are a parent) are as much susceptible to South Asian colorism as some kid in Pakistan/India. When it comes to the intra-South Asian colorism problem, we (and our kids) probably have more in common with a random kid in South Asia than their white/black school/work peer, so it is OUR problem for sure.

"I am just saying despite taking on an Islamic mantle, the cultural norms and bias still seems to reflect Bharati outlook." -- Being Islamic unfortunately does not guarantee the positive attributes of Islam these days. Given that most of colorism is also influenced by colonialism, I would argue that religion is not as big a factor here as some people claim.

But I'm not culturally South Asian, I am overwhelmingly British culturally, with maybe a tiny smattering of Asian culture. I said this even a few months ago in a thread about moving from Britain, where I confirmed I would need to move to an English speaking country because my culture is predominantly western. I said specifically I would feel like a foreigner in Pakistan.

So no, I don't think it is my problem. If you want to argue that it is a Pakistan problem, I agree. But again I would have to say that it is inherited from deep seated Hindu beliefs despite Pakistan's claims to Islamic ideology. So maybe Pakistanis need to first work out what their own ideology is.
 
The marrying for money and gossipping on the looks of the bride and groom is endemic throughout the world especially the former.
 

Death penalty for Indian man who burnt alive wife over skin colour​



This article contains details some people may find distressing.

A court in India has given the death penalty to a man for burning alive his wife over her skin colour.

In her statements before her death, Lakshmi had said that her husband Kishandas "routinely taunted her for being dark skinned".

District Judge Rahul Choudhary in the northern city of Udaipur explained the death penalty saying the murder fell in the category of "rarest of the rare" and it was "a crime against humanity".

Kishandas's lawyer told the BBC that his client was innocent and that they would appeal against the order.
Lakshmi's murder eight years back and the judgement, delivered at the weekend, have made headlines in a country where public obsession with colourism is well documented.

The attack on Lakshmi took place on the night of 24 June 2017, according to the court order seen by the BBC.

The judgement quotes from the statements she gave before her death to the police, the doctors and an executive magistrate.

Lakshmi said her husband often called her "kali" or dark skinned and body shamed her since their marriage in 2016.

On the night she died, Kishandas had brought a plastic bottle with a brown liquid - he said it was a medicine to make her skin fairer.

According to the statements, he applied the liquid to her body and when she complained that it smelled like acid, he set her on fire with an incense stick. When her body started burning, he poured the rest of the liquid on her and ran away.

Kishandas's parents and sister took her to hospital where she later died.

"It will not be an exaggeration to say that this heart-rending brutal crime was not just against Lakshmi, but it's a crime against humanity," Judge Choudhary said in his order.

Kishandas, he said, "broke her trust" and displayed "excessive cruelty in throwing the remaining liquid on her" while she burned.

"It's a crime that shocks the conscience of humanity which cannot even be imagined in a healthy and civilised society," the order added.

Public prosecutor Dinesh Paliwal described the order as "historic" and told the BBC he hoped it would act as "a lesson for others in society".

"A young woman in her early 20s was murdered brutally. She was someone's sister, someone's daughter, there were people who loved her. If we don't save our daughters, then who would?" he said.

Mr Paliwal said he had forwarded the order to the high court for confirmation of the death sentence, but added that the convict had 30 days to appeal.

Kishandas's lawyer Surendra Kumar Menariya told the BBC that Lakshmi's death had been accidental and there was no evidence against his client who had been falsely charged.

The Udaipur court order has once again put the spotlight on India's unhealthy preference for fair skin.

Girls and women with darker skin tones are called derogatory names and face discrimination; and skin lightening products make for big business, earning billions of dollars in profits.

In matrimonial columns, skin colour is almost always emphasised and lighter-skinned brides are more in demand.

The BBC has in the past reported incidents of suicides by women who were taunted by their husbands over their "dark complexion".

In recent years, campaigners have challenged the widely-held notion that fairer is better, but they say it's not easy to counter deeply entrenched prejudices.

Until that changes, such discriminatory attitudes will continue to ruin lives.
 
rickroll - ive answered your question, your just not all thr - thats your fault, even sweep_shot agreed with me, he understood me fine,

like i said thrs something wrong with you,

if you cant figure it out - then go on wikipedia :ROFLMAO:
Show me your answer to my question? Which post # is it in this thread? You never answered my question and are claiming that you have answered with non sensical responses. The more you post the more it seems like you are sweep_shot alt ID.

Do you consider the posts of sweep_shot to be more reliable than Wikipedia? Yes or no? Simple question!
 
But I'm not culturally South Asian, I am overwhelmingly British culturally, with maybe a tiny smattering of Asian culture. I said this even a few months ago in a thread about moving from Britain, where I confirmed I would need to move to an English speaking country because my culture is predominantly western. I said specifically I would feel like a foreigner in Pakistan.

So no, I don't think it is my problem. If you want to argue that it is a Pakistan problem, I agree. But again I would have to say that it is inherited from deep seated Hindu beliefs despite Pakistan's claims to Islamic ideology. So maybe Pakistanis need to first work out what their own ideology is.

This bolded part I agree. No point in discussing the origin of the problem because that will only drive people to blame game. Colorism is as much Pakistani culture's problem as it is India's. It does matter whether the problem originated in Hinduism or Buddhism or from Mars.
 
But I'm not culturally South Asian, I am overwhelmingly British culturally, with maybe a tiny smattering of Asian culture. I said this even a few months ago in a thread about moving from Britain, where I confirmed I would need to move to an English speaking country because my culture is predominantly western. I said specifically I would feel like a foreigner in Pakistan.

So no, I don't think it is my problem. If you want to argue that it is a Pakistan problem, I agree. But again I would have to say that it is inherited from deep seated Hindu beliefs despite Pakistan's claims to Islamic ideology. So maybe Pakistanis need to first work out what their own ideology is.

No offense but if you are culturally only British then you would never be here in Pakpassion but only be in some mainstream UK based forum and no other ethnic group's forum. The fact that you are consistently posting here since 2010 is proof enough that you feel ties to your Pakistani culture.
 
Still not answering my question and resorting to pointless digressions -- Believing in a random anonymous user in a forum is more reliable than wikipedia according to you?

It depends. For example, I am likely to provide more reliable information regarding Bangladeshi people/culture than Wikipedia because I am a Bangladeshi.

Also, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. So, it is not exactly a scholarly source or anything.

Anyway, I find you very entitled and cringy at times. You think you are some type of authority figure. In reality, you are also some random user on the internet. :inti
 
rickroll - ive answered your question, your just not all thr - thats your fault, even sweep_shot agreed with me, he understood me fine,

like i said thrs something wrong with you,

if you cant figure it out - then go on wikipedia :ROFLMAO:

I think we are better off not to engage with low-IQ pretentious idiots.

Keep up the good work. You are smashing sanghis and their chamchas well. :qdkcheeky
 
Here's an Indian girl being racist toward a black woman in America. She used the "N" word repetitively.

Racism runs deep among Indians.

 
It depends. For example, I am likely to provide more reliable information regarding Bangladeshi people/culture than Wikipedia because I am a Bangladeshi.

Also, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. So, it is not exactly a scholarly source or anything.

Anyway, I find you very entitled and cringy at times. You think you are some type of authority figure. In reality, you are also some random user on the internet. :inti

Precisely my point. We are all random users and not the authority on any subject. Maybe try to remember your own logic for yourself?

I quoted actual statistics of Bangladesh population that shows only 1% of Bangladesh is Mohajirs and yet here you are making weak claims that many Bangladeshis are lighter skinned because there is sizable Mohajir population from UP -- since when is 1% a sizable population?

I'm not pretending to be an authority on anything, YOU a random internet user are pretending to be an authority on Bangladesh. Do you even read the logic of what you type for yourself? I think all of the terms you use here -- cringy, being a fake authority on something is nothing but self projection. You are essentially describing what you are doing and projecting it on others as if they are doing that.
 
It depends. For example, I am likely to provide more reliable information regarding Bangladeshi people/culture than Wikipedia because I am a Bangladeshi.

Also, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. So, it is not exactly a scholarly source or anything.

Anyway, I find you very entitled and cringy at times. You think you are some type of authority figure. In reality, you are also some random user on the internet. :inti

Wikipedia is an accepted source for citations and information by most people. Yes it can be edited by anyone but ever heard of crowdsourced content and crowdsourced verification? You will know all this if you took time to read.

Since you want a non-Wikipedia article, so here are other sources that shows the population distribution in Bangladesh by ethnic groups --

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-in-bangladesh.html

According to these non-Wikipedia link, 98% of Bangladesh are Bengalis and 0.3% are Urdu speaking Biharis (that you referred to as UP people). Feel like an idiot yet? Your own foot in your mouth yet?

Let me guess, you will still want everyone here to just believe you @sweep_shot a random internet user as opposed to all these websites and then you will self project your own actions onto others and fake accuse others? I never asked anyone to believe me ... YOU DO. I do not want anyone to believe me because I am a random user. Most of my past posts have links for data citations. YOU are the one asking everyone to believe you. Please try to have education outside of Chittagong PIND School of Information. Even a #100 ranked university in Pakistan will have much better output than what you are exhibiting here and I feel bad for any other good poster from BD here.
 
Wikipedia is an accepted source for citations and information by most people. Yes it can be edited by anyone but ever heard of crowdsourced content and crowdsourced verification? You will know all this if you took time to read.

Since you want a non-Wikipedia article, so here are other sources that shows the population distribution in Bangladesh by ethnic groups --

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-in-bangladesh.html

According to these non-Wikipedia link, 98% of Bangladesh are Bengalis and 0.3% are Urdu speaking Biharis (that you referred to as UP people). Feel like an idiot yet? Your own foot in your mouth yet?

Let me guess, you will still want everyone here to just believe you @sweep_shot a random internet user as opposed to all these websites and then you will self project your own actions onto others and fake accuse others? I never asked anyone to believe me ... YOU DO. I do not want anyone to believe me because I am a random user. Most of my past posts have links for data citations. YOU are the one asking everyone to believe you. Please try to have education outside of Chittagong PIND School of Information. Even a #100 ranked university in Pakistan will have much better output than what you are exhibiting here and I feel bad for any other good poster from BD here.


Now he is going to accuse you of googling the non-wiki site .... you cant win against pind walas until you relocate to his pind in BD and then report on the matter based on first hand info. 🤣
 
Show me your answer to my question? Which post # is it in this thread? You never answered my question and are claiming that you have answered with non sensical responses. The more you post the more it seems like you are sweep_shot alt ID.

Do you consider the posts of sweep_shot to be more reliable than Wikipedia? Yes or no? Simple question!
please go back and read my answer again, sweep-shot was and is right,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Precisely my point. We are all random users and not the authority on any subject. Maybe try to remember your own logic for yourself?

I quoted actual statistics of Bangladesh population that shows only 1% of Bangladesh is Mohajirs and yet here you are making weak claims that many Bangladeshis are lighter skinned because there is sizable Mohajir population from UP -- since when is 1% a sizable population?

I'm not pretending to be an authority on anything, YOU a random internet user are pretending to be an authority on Bangladesh. Do you even read the logic of what you type for yourself? I think all of the terms you use here -- cringy, being a fake authority on something is nothing but self projection. You are essentially describing what you are doing and projecting it on others as if they are doing that.
thrs something wrong wih you, go to another sanghi to do some weird so called spiritual healing - you dont know bangldeshi ppl like a begali him or herself.


RICKROLL - YOUR WRONG AGAIN
 
Wikipedia is an accepted source for citations and information by most people. Yes it can be edited by anyone but ever heard of crowdsourced content and crowdsourced verification? You will know all this if you took time to read.

Since you want a non-Wikipedia article, so here are other sources that shows the population distribution in Bangladesh by ethnic groups --

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-in-bangladesh.html

According to these non-Wikipedia link, 98% of Bangladesh are Bengalis and 0.3% are Urdu speaking Biharis (that you referred to as UP people). Feel like an idiot yet? Your own foot in your mouth yet?

Let me guess, you will still want everyone here to just believe you @sweep_shot a random internet user as opposed to all these websites and then you will self project your own actions onto others and fake accuse others? I never asked anyone to believe me ... YOU DO. I do not want anyone to believe me because I am a random user. Most of my past posts have links for data citations. YOU are the one asking everyone to believe you. Please try to have education outside of Chittagong PIND School of Information. Even a #100 ranked university in Pakistan will have much better output than what you are exhibiting here and I feel bad for any other good poster from BD here.
It aint accepted by anyone,,,,, not even the founder of it says its a source to go with.......


Rickroll im born and live in the UK, trust me thrs many light skinned bangali's - who literally look identical to a light skinned punjabi, my aread being dominant white english, has a sizeable asian population to it, mixture of mirpuri pakistanis and bangladeshi ppl,

Go on youtube and type in Tower hamlets - and watch a walkthrough - biggest bengali populated area in the UK - they are the majority of that area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So three posters that aren’t Indian and randomly using Sanghi as an insult towards each other..

Three are from US UK Canada which clearly doesn’t make a difference here..
 
Wikipedia is an accepted source for citations and information by most people. Yes it can be edited by anyone but ever heard of crowdsourced content and crowdsourced verification? You will know all this if you took time to read.

Since you want a non-Wikipedia article, so here are other sources that shows the population distribution in Bangladesh by ethnic groups --

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-in-bangladesh.html

According to these non-Wikipedia link, 98% of Bangladesh are Bengalis and 0.3% are Urdu speaking Biharis (that you referred to as UP people). Feel like an idiot yet? Your own foot in your mouth yet?

Let me guess, you will still want everyone here to just believe you @sweep_shot a random internet user as opposed to all these websites and then you will self project your own actions onto others and fake accuse others? I never asked anyone to believe me ... YOU DO. I do not want anyone to believe me because I am a random user. Most of my past posts have links for data citations. YOU are the one asking everyone to believe you. Please try to have education outside of Chittagong PIND School of Information. Even a #100 ranked university in Pakistan will have much better output than what you are exhibiting here and I feel bad for any other good poster from BD here.
I have interacted with quite a few bangalis and there are lighter skinned ones as well , they occur at say lesser frequency as say lighter skinned Punjabis , but they do occur.
 
I have interacted with quite a few bangalis and there are lighter skinned ones as well , they occur at say lesser frequency as say lighter skinned Punjabis , but they do occur.

I generally do not respond to @rickroll because he is factually wrong 99.99% of the time. :inti

Bangladesh have all sorts of people. There are aboriginal chakmas who look Chinese, there are muhajirs (some of them are very fair-skinned), there are mixed people too (mixed as in parents are non-Bangladeshis). There are also many dark ones.

It is very mixed.
 
It aint accepted by anyone,,,,, not even the founder of it says its a source to go with.......


Rickroll im born and live in the UK, trust me thrs many light skinned bangali's - who literally look identical to a light skinned punjabi, my aread being dominant white english, has a sizeable asian population to it, mixture of mirpuri pakistanis and bangladeshi ppl,

Go on youtube and type in Tower hamlets - and watch a walkthrough - biggest bengali populated area in the UK - they are the majority of that area.

I think @rickroll is new to USA and hasn't met many ethnic groups yet. So, he has many ignorant takes regarding different cultures. He has to rely on Wikipedia I guess.

BTW, I noticed he defends India more than any other country. That makes me wonder if he is actually an Indian. :yk
 
I have interacted with quite a few bangalis and there are lighter skinned ones as well , they occur at say lesser frequency as say lighter skinned Punjabis , but they do occur.
It's pretty rare from my experience. Here's a pic of the Bangladesh cricket team. I'm not sure who you'd qualify as light skinned even by subcontinental standards.

1765812253357.png

@sweep_shot obviously has some childhood trauma to deal with and needs to find some way to disown his countrymen's natural colour and feel more Pakistani. Maybe if all the Pakistanis give him a pat on the head and reassure him, he'll be able to get past this chip on his shoulder?

I personally am as dark skinned a South Indian as you can find and have been very lucky to never be disadvantaged by it.
 
It's pretty rare from my experience. Here's a pic of the Bangladesh cricket team. I'm not sure who you'd qualify as light skinned even by subcontinental standards.

View attachment 160058

@sweep_shot obviously has some childhood trauma to deal with and needs to find some way to disown his countrymen's natural colour and feel more Pakistani. Maybe if all the Pakistanis give him a pat on the head and reassure him, he'll be able to get past this chip on his shoulder?

I personally am as dark skinned a South Indian as you can find and have been very lucky to never be disadvantaged by it.

I can't believe we are having this conversation regarding the colors of BD people. These things are normally discussed by females.

I do not try to be Pakistani, Nigerian, Bolivian, or anything else. I believe in individualism. Nationalism is not my cup of tea. I care about my own interests first.

So, you are saying these 15 guys represent whole of Bangladesh. LOL. Also, background was gloomy.

Look up Chakmas. How do they look?

What about these guys?

dsfdfdssds.jpg

sddfsdsfds.jpg

sddfsdsfdfs.jpg
 
This thread has been completely derailed by sanghis and their 1 chamcha.

Let's return to topic. Topic is Indian racism. :inti
 
It's pretty rare from my experience. Here's a pic of the Bangladesh cricket team. I'm not sure who you'd qualify as light skinned even by subcontinental standards.

View attachment 160058

@sweep_shot obviously has some childhood trauma to deal with and needs to find some way to disown his countrymen's natural colour and feel more Pakistani. Maybe if all the Pakistanis give him a pat on the head and reassure him, he'll be able to get past this chip on his shoulder?

I personally am as dark skinned a South Indian as you can find and have been very lucky to never be disadvantaged by it.
Pakistanis come in lot of shades as well , so he can be Pakistani anyways. I was just sharing my ancedotal evidence.
 
Pakistanis come in lot of shades as well , so he can be Pakistani anyways. I was just sharing my ancedotal evidence.

Correct.

These guys either hate Bangladesh or didn't meet many Bangladeshis. So, they have to check Wikipedia and other social media sites.

Anyway, these things are generally discussed by females. I am feeling creeped out these people are getting worked up over these. :inti
 
No offense but if you are culturally only British then you would never be here in Pakpassion but only be in some mainstream UK based forum and no other ethnic group's forum. The fact that you are consistently posting here since 2010 is proof enough that you feel ties to your Pakistani culture.

I joined here because at the time I followed the cricket and was a Pakistan cricket supporter because they look similar to me, not because of any cultural association. If you follow my posting history you will see I have mostly stopped posting in the cricket section because Pakistanis themselves don't take the sport seriously.

Anyway, you are making this about individuals rather than addressing the larger issues I am raising. If you disagree with what I said fundamentally then address those points instead of focusing on me.
 
I joined here because at the time I followed the cricket and was a Pakistan cricket supporter because they look similar to me, not because of any cultural association. If you follow my posting history you will see I have mostly stopped posting in the cricket section because Pakistanis themselves don't take the sport seriously.

Anyway, you are making this about individuals rather than addressing the larger issues I am raising. If you disagree with what I said fundamentally then address those points instead of focusing on me.

@rickroll is relatively new to this forum. Joined in 2022. Less than 1000 posts.

Even though he is new, he acts like some authority figure. Reminds me of one of my Indian coworkers from my last job (nosy about other people instead of her own tasks). :inti

He also tried this with me (focusing on me instead of my posts). So, I had to put him on ignore. :inti
 
@rickroll is relatively new to this forum. Joined in 2022. Less than 1000 posts.

Even though he is new, he acts like some authority figure. Reminds me of one of my Indian coworkers from my last job (nosy about other people instead of her own tasks). :inti

He also tried this with me (focusing on me instead of my posts). So, I had to put him on ignore. :inti


I have seen @rickroll posts before, I don't really have any opinion on him/her. Seems to be intelligent enough, but on this subject he/she is veering towards ad hominem, perhaps without realising it.
 
I have interacted with quite a few bangalis and there are lighter skinned ones as well , they occur at say lesser frequency as say lighter skinned Punjabis , but they do occur.
True, I am not saying they never occur but my point is that their probabilistic distribution is not common. Please understand this critical difference. Data never lies and I find it incredulous that Bangladeshi trolls here say we should believe in a random forum user as opposed to verifiable data. Please look at the order of this discourse and you tell me which makes more sense.

#1 Assertion by sweep_shot -- There are many lighter skinned Bangladeshis because they also have a sizable UP Mohajirs besides the darker skinned Bengalis. He was also mentioning one off example like Athar Ali Khan and BD actresses. Actors/actresses in South Asia being unrealistic representations is the very topic of this thread btw.

#2 My proof from Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia sources like Yale university website that 98% of BD are Bengalis and only 0.3% are Mohajirs from Bihar.

#3 My conclusion that most of BD is darker skinned (since when is 2% described as "many") when it comes to cultural issues and representations against people of darker skin. The BD trolls here emphasize that it is not the case because Wikipedia, Yale university etc are all wrong because a BD user called sweep_shot in a forum says so and we must disregard Yale, Wikipedia in favor of this anonymous troll that "many" Bangladeshis are also fairer skinned. Would this make sense for you? Please give me an honest response.

The point is not whether they occur or not but the prevalence of this occurrence and given the lack of prevalence the similar colorism norms. Exceptions do not make examples - rule 101 of statistical trend analysis, right?
 
I joined here because at the time I followed the cricket and was a Pakistan cricket supporter because they look similar to me, not because of any cultural association. If you follow my posting history you will see I have mostly stopped posting in the cricket section because Pakistanis themselves don't take the sport seriously.

Anyway, you are making this about individuals rather than addressing the larger issues I am raising. If you disagree with what I said fundamentally then address those points instead of focusing on me.
Ok fair enough. Just so you know I mentioned this below as a compliment and not as an offense. I'm a strong believer that we should be proud of our culture and where we came from.

"No offense but if you are culturally only British then you would never be here in Pakpassion but only be in some mainstream UK based forum and no other ethnic group's forum. The fact that you are consistently posting here since 2010 is proof enough that you feel ties to your Pakistani culture."
 
Pakistanis come in lot of shades as well , so he can be Pakistani anyways. I was just sharing my ancedotal evidence.
Correct. People come in many shades and we all know someone who is not the norm of a typical population group in whichever country. I have seen Pakistanis or Indians as pale as white guys and as dark as black guys in the US. One off anecdotal observations are not the discussion point here.

There are BD people as light skinned as Pakistanis. There are Pakistanis are dark as Sri Lankans. There are Indians as Asian looking as Chinese people. I'm not saying such people never exist. They exist albeit 1% or 2% (which I have backed with neutral data sources). Please please understand this critical difference because the BD trolls are conflating this basic understanding.

The point is which data set will you consider when extrapolating a socio-cultural problem or a solution for a country? The 98% data or the 2% data set? Obviously the 98% data set, right? This is my point from the get go in this thread.

BD trolls like @sweep_shot and @finalfantasy7 are saying that the 98% data set should not be inferred and that the 2% is the one we should take into account for Bangladesh because all the neutral data is wrong and an anonymous user in this forum is the source of trust for this data. I hope I'm explaining this clearly.
 
@rickroll is relatively new to this forum. Joined in 2022. Less than 1000 posts.

Even though he is new, he acts like some authority figure. Reminds me of one of my Indian coworkers from my last job (nosy about other people instead of her own tasks). :inti

He also tried this with me (focusing on me instead of my posts). So, I had to put him on ignore. :inti
Dude, I do not want to be the authority figure on anything. If anything you are acting as the authority figure for BD. This is the basic premise of my argument. Are you not capable of reading and understanding? Let me simplify it down to Chittagong PIND level ...

What I (rickroll) am saying - Only trust neutral published data for BD demographics. I shared all of these neutral (Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia sourced).

What you (@sweep_shot and @finalfantasy7 ) are saying - Do not trust neutral sources. I (sweep_shot) am from BD and only trust me.

Can you at least understand the above difference? Tell me, who is trying to act as authority here?

Oh btw, who cares how many posts you made or how long you have been in the forum? Those things do not make you right (again, it is you trying to impose authority through these pointless metrics). What matters is the accuracy of what we state backed by neutral data sources.
 
Correct. People come in many shades and we all know someone who is not the norm of a typical population group in whichever country. I have seen Pakistanis or Indians as pale as white guys and as dark as black guys in the US. One off anecdotal observations are not the discussion point here.

There are BD people as light skinned as Pakistanis. There are Pakistanis are dark as Sri Lankans. There are Indians as Asian looking as Chinese people. I'm not saying such people never exist. They exist albeit 1% or 2% (which I have backed with neutral data sources). Please please understand this critical difference because the BD trolls are conflating this basic understanding.

The point is which data set will you consider when extrapolating a socio-cultural problem or a solution for a country? The 98% data or the 2% data set? Obviously the 98% data set, right? This is my point from the get go in this thread.

BD trolls like @sweep_shot and @finalfantasy7 are saying that the 98% data set should not be inferred and that the 2% is the one we should take into account for Bangladesh because all the neutral data is wrong and an anonymous user in this forum is the source of trust for this data. I hope I'm explaining this clearly.
Not what i said, what i said was your wikipedia source is laughable

i didnt go by the other reports you listed, because like i said ive seen many bengali who are light shade in my area, especially in tower hamlets in london

and i said sweep_shot knows more than you as hes bengali - which is true - as he meets up with bengalis reguarly = he nows more than you and that article (2%) which is accurate and doesnt even show its real data
 
This thread has been completely derailed by sanghis and their 1 chamcha.

Let's return to topic. Topic is Indian racism. :inti
Senseless troll post lacking brains. Colorism exists in all South Asian countries. Prior generations of my own family (Sindhi+Punjabi+Pashtun) showed colorism.

From a neutral non-Wikipedia link below conforming to Chittagong PIND standards -- Nerissa Nashin ’19, a professional makeup artist working in Bangladesh, says colorism, or discrimination against darker-skinned members of the same race, is pervasive and normalized there. We’re told not to play in the sun because we’ll get too dark, not to drink tea because it will make you dark, and that you’re not marriage material if you’re too dark,” she says.

 
Not what i said, what i said was your wikipedia source is laughable

i didnt go by the other reports you listed, because like i said ive seen many bengali who are light shade in my area, especially in tower hamlets in london

and i said sweep_shot knows more than you as hes bengali - which is true - as he meets up with bengalis reguarly = he nows more than you and that article (2%) which is accurate and doesnt even show its real data

Correct.

His arguments are hilarious. It is like Borat speaking.

As I have mentioned before, Bangladesh have 4-5 different groups. It has become a pretty mixed country by now.

Group #1: Dark-skinned Bangladeshis. I am one of them.
Group #2: Muhajirs. 3 of my uncles have muhajir wives (2 have Indian ethnicities and 1 have Pakistani ethnicity; their ancestors are from Pak/Ind).
Group #3: Mixed. These have parents who are non-Bangladeshis. For example, Japanese-Bangladeshi, American-Bangladeshi etc.
Group #4: Aboriginals. They mostly look like Chinese people. One such group is "chakma". They mostly live in the southeast; close to Myanmar.

These are the realities. Now if someone wants to be ignorant, that's his matter I guess.
 
Not what i said, what i said was your wikipedia source is laughable

i didnt go by the other reports you listed, because like i said ive seen many bengali who are light shade in my area, especially in tower hamlets in london

and i said sweep_shot knows more than you as hes bengali - which is true - as he meets up with bengalis reguarly = he nows more than you and that article (2%) which is accurate and doesnt even show its real data
The fact that you say sweep_shot is more reliable than Wikipedia is the real laughable point. But leaving that aside I also shared other non-Wikipedia sources (like Yale university) that confirm the 2% data point. We all know a person or situation that does not fit the norm but when extrapolating for a country do you go with 98% data point or the 2% data point? Who cares what you or sweep_shot claim to see or know? Neutral data sources are what matter. So sweep_shot is posting photos of 3 people and saying "there are many lighter skinned BD people" and that is suddenly verifiable? Do you see how ridiculous that assertion is?
 
Correct.

His arguments are hilarious. It is like Borat speaking.

As I have mentioned before, Bangladesh have 4-5 different groups. It has become a pretty mixed country by now.

Group #1: Dark-skinned Bangladeshis. I am one of them.
Group #2: Muhajirs. 3 of my uncles have muhajir wives (2 have Indian ethnicities and 1 have Pakistani ethnicity; their ancestors are from Pak/Ind).
Group #3: Mixed. These have parents who are non-Bangladeshis. For example, Japanese-Bangladeshi, American-Bangladeshi etc.
Group #4: Aboriginals. They mostly look like Chinese people. One such group is "chakma". They mostly live in the southeast; close to Myanmar.

These are the realities. Now if someone wants to be ignorant, that's his matter I guess.

yeah so the person who shared neutral data sources is Borat like and you two who pull data from your ends have sage like wisdom? :rolleyes: Notice that it is mostly just you two agreeing with each other all the time -- same user with Alt ID situation perhaps?

Let's look at the groups 1-4 that you yourself laid out ...

Group 1 - 98% of BD from all of the neutral data sources.
Group 2 - 0.3% - 1% again from the data sources.
Group 3 - Negligible small number compared to BD population of 175M given how many emigrate and among that how many inter-marry.
Group 4 - Around 1% from this Wikipedia article and you can see the references below - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_minorities_in_Bangladesh

Basically Group 1 is 98% which reinforces my point since Bengalis are darker skinned. But what you are claiming is the equivalent of you seeing your neighbor's cousin's chacha being lighter skinned then many BD people have to be lighter skinned contrary to all the neutral published data. Who is the real Borat here?
 
This is the issue all of the South Asian kids face in western countries. If you are a parent then you know that this issue exists among all South Asians and all of us need to explore a solution instead of cheap point scoring. I'm not sure if the BD trolls trying to hijack this thread are parents so they may not understand the pain of South Asian colorism affecting the next generations.

My guess is that the BD trolls @sweep_shot or @finalfantasy7 (if they are two different people and not Alt IDs) are not parents so they do not understand the pains of South Asian parents battling external racism and intra-South Asian colorism to protect our kids. Kids usually have the most unfiltered words when it comes to teasing or abusing each other and we as parents face the most stress in protecting our kids' emotions during their growth phase. This colorism issue affects all of us South Asian parents but sadly this thread in a PP forum is getting taken over by non-Pakistani point scoring trolls.
 
Ok fair enough. Just so you know I mentioned this below as a compliment and not as an offense. I'm a stro-g believer that we should be proud of our culture and where we came from.

"No offense but if you are culturally only British then you would never be here in Pakpassion but only be in some mainstream UK based forum and no other ethnic group's forum. The fact that you are consistently posting here since 2010 is proof enough that you feel ties to your Pakistani culture."

Well I am proud of certain parts of my parents culture. Pakistanis are generally very hospitable people and family-oriented. But I believe the racism which lingers and obsession with white skin is a cultural hangover from the British Raj colonisation of India. That is why you see similarities across both sides of the border.
 
Back
Top