How shocking, who knew.

You're wrong. By definition given to us by the politically correct establishment, only whites are bigots and racists. Nonwhites are never bigotted or racist, no matter how bigotted or racist their actions or opinions would be if they were white.

I wouldn't call it bigotry, exactly. It's an attempt to preserve an ethinc/religious tradition, which is done by many groups. Korean Christians, Greek Orthodox, Jews, and many other groups have the tradition of marrying within the tribe. It's an exclusive attitude that many of us justifiably look down on in America, but I wouldn't say it's the same as equating other races or religions to lesser persons.

That said, if you want to enjoy the benefits of life in the West, don't expect your children to participate in your backward minded eugenics project to have racially pure offspring.

Not bigotry exactly? Suppose a white father said he would never let his daughter date or marry a black or a latino or an asian. Suppose a white mother said she would never let her son date or marry a black or a latino or an asian. How is that not racist? How is that not bigotry? Change the race of the person holding the opinion, and voila, no racism. It's an understandable desire to preserve culture or heritage we must embrace at the peril of being racist ourselves.

Coping with this kind of cognitive dissonance is enough to drive you mad.

With Indians its not about color. Indian are highly divided themselves and in most communities folks tend to marry within their own community. As the earlier commenter pointed out, the difference is cultural and not race or color based. Indians parents would frown on their sons/daughter marrying outside their community even if the other person was an Indian. So the fear of a "white" daughter or son in law not because of their color but because of cultural (and especially religious) differences. Barring the cultural aspect, Indian love 'fair' skin - just check out an Indian matrimonial ad.

So technically it is not racism. But that doesn't mean its right and I agree that is unacceptable.

I know whites who disapproved of their kids marrying other whites, because one was German and the other Irish (for instance.) Or because the other was a "mutt." Or not rich. Or didn't attend the right college. Or ... you get the idea.

It's still bigotry, whether it's racial or not. Regardless of whatever ethnic distinction the bigot may think he or she has from the "others." We're all pink on the inside.

This is by no means scientific, but of the dozen or so Indian- and Asian-Americans I've gotten to know well, all have this problem with their folks. And the parents make no bones about it. Another thing I've learned: apparently, the Japanese are at the top of the Asian totem pole (though the Chinese would argue), and Filipinos are at the bottom (there's a firm consensus).

It takes all kinds to make a world, I guess.

Is that the issue here? Was the parents' objection that the girl was white? No. It's that she was American and of a different religion. If their objection was that she was white then of course that would be bigotry, but that's not what the Dear Prudie letter says. Read it again.

Bigotry is not exclusive to skin color. One can be an anti-Catholic bigot or a homophobic bigot, for example. Rejecting someone out of hand for being American is also bigoted.

Bigotry is a very generic term that does not necessarily have to mean racist. If they object to the girlfriend based on her race, that's racist. If they object to her based on her religion, culture, etc, that is bigotry.

This situation is not the same as one in which a white parent disapproves of their child marrying a non-white person. "White" is a totally artificial group. If this situation were analogous, the Indian parents would want their child to marry a "brown" person of any ethnicity, which would of course be ridiculous.

Unless the parents in question oppose the match on the basis of a belief in the innate superiority of Indians as compared to whites, there is no credible charge of racism.

As for whether they are "bigoted," the OED defines the word as

"Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion, or party; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and intolerant towards others."

Certainly I would accept that this could apply, although I would argue that in an abstract sense, one could formulate a perfectly reasonable objection to cross-cultural marriages without being obstinate or blind, and certainly without being intolerant. I personally do not believe that parents should resist such marriages too strongly, but there is no reason that they should not encourage their offspring to keep to the cultural/religious traditions that sustained them. I hope that we can at the very least understand the desire to maintain tradition, especially considering that in our modern western world we are descending into a frivolous monoculture. We should also recognize that parents have been objecting to marriages since the institution first appeared. Parents are by nature hardheaded and children rebellious (a generalization of course, but) and we need not get so fixated on the racial/ethnic/religious dimensions here. Try considering this situation as merely a small example of a wider trend found in all human societies.

Jacob Mogey:

"White" is a totally artificial group.

Actually, "race" is a totally bogus concept to begin with. See "The Myth of Race."

Actually, the LW never says the word "religion". Sure, you could infer it as part of their culture, but it's never mentioned.

"Unless the parents in question oppose the match on the basis of a belief in the innate superiority of Indians as compared to whites, there is no credible charge of racism."

Would the parents oppose the match because they believe Indians are inferior to whites? I doubt it. At least implicit in exclusion like this is the idea that one is better than another.

I'm curious about the reaction of the 'white' GF's parents. Has the girlfriend brought her SO home to meet the parents? Not that it matters what they think, but it is interesting that the LW doesn't mention the GF parents.