Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:
I am increasingly beginning to feel that western claims that they owe their culture and background to the Greeks is a load of crock.
When I joined graduate school, there was a plethora of Greek students there also. One of the more thoughtful of them told me the above, too. This was, oh my god, almost 3 decades ago. I never did any work to verify it; I just assumed it was true.
Arun, in the late 1990s I made on an alumni forum an anguished post after a particularly vicious school shooting in the US suggesting that US culture was a hidden barbarian culture.

In those days the forum was open to the public and some Italian saw that post and emailed me the following letter, which I must say has influenced my thoughts

I read your posting on how the united states is secretly harboring a barbarian culture.

Now, before I begin, you probably do not remember posting it, since the webpage I visited was dated at 1999 (almost 3 years ago) and I am a complete stranger. However, I still feel the need to share my views and clarify a few things.

First of, you are correct; the united states is very much a barbarian culture. It has been a barbarian culture since its founding.

You see, the first white settler of this country were primarily from England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. While America is pretty diverse, and there are large populations of people from just about anywhere in the world, the majority of this country's population is still made up of the descendandts of those English, Scotish, Irish, German, and Scandinavian settlers.

During ancient times (around 300 B.C. to be exact), these people were regarded by the Greeks, Romans, and other mediterranean people as Barbarians. Their values included; independence, individualism, and materialism. Sound familiar?

Even though the barbarians north of the Rhine River during the days of Rome eventually adopted the ways of the civilized world, many of their warrior values stayed, with the only difference being, that they now have a different form. For instance, instead of battle, they love sports with a passion. Instead of worshiping strong warriors, they literally deify athletes much in the same way the barbarians of old deified their best warriors. Basically, Americans, because most are descended from the Northern Europeans/Barbarian stock, are really nothing but well dressed barbarians given how they have not at all discarded the old warrior values.

Warrior values such as aquisition, and materialism, of expecting everyone to be independent, and an almost fanatical worship of physical strength and skill. While the admiration of skill and strength was seen in mediterranean cultures such as Rome, the value of a warrior/gladiator was the same as that of a person who was known to be kind and generous. In the barbarian north, a warrior's value was greater than that of his fellow man, no matter what the virtues of the man in question were. Weakness, was seen as a flaw of the person, and, as a result, the physically weak were treated poorly.

Why do you think America has such a bad problem with school shootings? Take a close observation at the kids who do the shooting, and you will see that, more often than not, the kids in question are kids this culture regards as weak, and therefore, have no qualms about tormenting them. Also, America's foreign policy about bombing other countries is largely due to the Barbarian values instilled in them generation after generation; values which are not going to go away given the amount of material wealth this country has been able to aquire because of them.

I hope this shed some light and that it was insightful.

Sorry about the length, and I hope to hear from you if you found it interesting.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Thanks for posting. I found the statistics interesting, and will use them.

The article itself is an example of how the west, which seemed to start off with impressive use of science and evidence to cure the ills of the world, has descended to blathering nonsense such as this article written by a lady who is a PhD and is at Brookings.

Let me explain. The nursery rhyme "Ring-a ring-a roses" is said to have been based on a plague epidemic in London. The "ring of roses" refers to bleeding under the skin caused by a deadly form or plague called "hemorrhagic" plague, and the "tishoo tishoo we all fall down" refers to the sneezing and coughing caused by the "pneumonic" form of plague after which many people died (we all fall down). "A pocket full of Posies" was thought to guard against plague - which is clearly nonsense.

It was the height of science to pin down the plague to bacteria than came from sewer rats, and control of the latter reduced epidemics. And this was topped by the discovery of antibiotics which pretty much "conquered" plague.

The moral of this story? Plague was conquered only AFTER people found out why plague was occurring. This sequence of events is true for every modern development. First understand why, then explain and use. How can heavier than air bodies fly? How do iron ships float? etc

Now this article about marriage speaks of a whole lot of stuff about marriages, but does not even attempt to ask, "Why does the institution of marriage exit in the first place?". The loss of marriage is being lamented and it has been decided that it cannot come back. But how can conclusions be reached without knowing why it came into existence in all societies? This is GIGO/"Pocketful of posies" logic at work. From a PHD at Brookings. No less.
Last edited by shiv on 27 Sep 2014 08:01, edited 1 time in total.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:Arun, in the late 1990s I made on an alumni forum an anguished post after a particularly vicious school shooting in the US suggesting that US culture was a hidden barbarian culture.

In those days the forum was open to the public and some Italian saw that post and emailed me the following letter, which I must say has influenced my thoughts
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/us/25shooters.html
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

shiv wrote: Let me explain. The nursery rhyme "Ring-a ring-a roses" is said to have been bases on a plague epidemic in Londin.
For benefit of others:

Ring-a-ring o' roses,
A pocket full of posies,
A-tishoo! A-tishoo!
We all fall down.
shiv wrote: Now this article about marriage speaks of a whole lot of stuff about marriages, but does not even attempt to ask, "Why does the institution of marriage exit in the first place".
Don't remember who said this - we are saying more and more about less and less and less and less about more and more.
The challenge is fundamentally based imho in Western - Judeo-Christian-Islamic foundations -
they never defined Why and took even the concept of God at face value, but more and more is said about....

Science has followed this process of description and empirical probing and lacks intuitive mechanism and relies myopically imho on serendipity for anything novel to occur. This has lead to a lot of technological gadgetry, but no fundamental human evolution. Our understanding is no different than our cave dwelling ancestors, in some sense, and in another we probably have regressed as we have failed miserably at scaling.

This may be a bit harsh - let us say humans were just small tribes, marriages failing may not have made as much of the difference as it does in more complex societies. In smaller tribes - children had a place in the tribe and were let us say the collective responsibility of the group. If a father or a mother is either lost due to accident or war, etc. the children still have other role models positive or otherwise to mimic and learn from... the culture of the tribe evolves, but the institution of marriage need not have the same critical place. Even in the ancient SD texts when we find instances of more liberal sexual and coupling, this was perhaps the reason.

As you scale these tribes into a more structured order, be it Varna-Jati or be it Individual-State contract, the individual becomes less critical, the weakest link is the smallest group within the larger groups. Family is critical.

Thoughts and criticisms are welcome :mrgreen:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Pulikeshi wrote:
This may be a bit harsh - let us say humans were just small tribes, marriages failing may not have made as much of the difference as it does in more complex societies. In smaller tribes - children had a place in the tribe and were let us say the collective responsibility of the group. If a father or a mother is either lost due to accident or war, etc. the children still have other role models positive or otherwise to mimic and learn from... the culture of the tribe evolves, but the institution of marriage need not have the same critical place. Even in the ancient SD texts when we find instances of more liberal sexual and coupling, this was perhaps the reason.
This is how I see it and it is no less harsh in some ways.

Despite our human belief that we are special all we ever do is eat and reproduce. If humans did nothing other than eating and reproducing like molluscs, spiders and rabbits - we would still be able to explain most of human history. If we don't eat, the individual dies and if we don't reproduce the group dies. One can express this as a very strong urge for the individual to stay alive and to propagate the group, so there is a group urge to survive. Within limits, death is avoided (for oneself and one's own group). Biologically this urge translates into a very strong desire to eat - with "pleasure" coming from eating, and a very strong desire to reproduce with "pleasure" coming from activities that lead to reproduction. Crudely put - all that every life form desires is to eat and fu(k. Nothing more. And that is true for humans as well.

But some organization has gone into promoting these two basic activities with the fundamental goal of group survival. I will stick with human organization for group survival. For the group to survive the individual must eat and he and she must get together to reproduce.

For the individual to eat, the group needs to provide food for vulnerable individuals like the young. That has led to some specialization like techniques and tools for hunting and agriculture.

For the individual to reproduce, male must mate with female. But pregnant females and females with young children are vulnerable and need to be fed for survival. Why should any male help them survive? After all the urge to eat and reproduce is strong and if some females are pregnant or nursing the healthy male need to look for a willing female to mate with rather than waste his time and energy feeding some female and child. In fact even a pregnant female or nursing mother is sexually attractive and all the male needs to do is mate, not hang around feeding the female.

In a small, ancient group of humans - young, strong sexually active males would not have had (and still do not have) any reason to stick with a single partner. They need food and they need sex. Biologically it is the female who has everything to gain (for survival) in trying to get one male partner to help her out while she is pregnant or nursing. Technically it is perfectly fine if she gets herself impregnated by one male but manages to get some other male to do the looking after. But the problem is holding on to this one male if other unattached females are attracting his attention and trying to get impregnated by him.

In a situation where one male, after some effort, has found one female to mate with and is doing her favors (getting her food?) in exchange for regular mating, the female is still attractive to other males. The only way a male can keep getting his sex is to fight off the other males. If however the female herself ditches him and gives every male sex, no single male has any incentive to pay long term attention to any individual female. In a society where sex leads to pregnancy (a normal unmodified human society), this situation is a problem because after several rounds of sex and fun the female gets pregnant and becomes vulnerable and needs support with food and protection. If she has not managed to get one male to support her for all the sex she gives him, she is left high and dry. If she has had multiple partners who have had their fill of sex and gone their way, none of them is interested in supporting a woman with child. In a sense there is some incentive for both partners to stick to each other for mutual benefit. She helps him hunt or guards the crop against pests and keeps a place for him to stay warm with her. He in turn gets sex and sticks with her.

Here then we have the beginning of a primitive kind of "single partner" morality that is linked to survival and biology. It is possible to use a similar process of reasoning link many other rules of morality with the need for survival and preservation of the group (society). For example, food obtained by one can be stolen by another. Having a partner helps guard that food when the owner's attention is diverted. The punishment received for trying to steal food or a partner is the basis for a primitive "do not steal" and "stay faithful to your partner" type moral rules. Morality is linked to biology and survival, not religion. Marriage too is an offshoot of this morality, again linked to group peace and group survival

It is only in Hindu dharma that morality and rules for group survival, individual and group duties are listed without any imposition of religion. Religions like Christianity and Islam picked up on pre-existing morality and rewrote them as if morality did not exist before the religions were invented.

Western societies have assumed that morality is linked to religion because they come from a predominantly Christian background - and the Abrahamic religions simply stole and digested morality and claimed it as their original idea, which it is not. Morality is a biological survival function. But when western societies became "liberal" after the 1960s and started talking of Universalism, they decided to discard religion. And when they discarded religion (Christianity) they also discarded the morality that they thought was part of religion and not part of human social biology. This is GIGO. It will be an epic fail. Marriage, fidelity and family survival are essential for the human race.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote: It is only in Hindu dharma that morality and rules for group survival, individual and group duties are listed without any imposition of religion. Religions like Christianity and Islam picked up on pre-existing morality and rewrote them as if morality did not exist before the religions were invented.

Western societies have assumed that morality is linked to religion because they come from a predominantly Christian background - and the Abrahamic religions simply stole and digested morality and claimed it as their original idea, which it is not. Morality is a biological survival function. But when western societies became "liberal" after the 1960s and started talking of Universalism, they decided to discard religion. And when they discarded religion (Christianity) they also discarded the morality that they thought was part of religion and not part of human social biology. This is GIGO. It will be an epic fail. Marriage, fidelity and family survival are essential for the human race.
Good post Shiv. A lot of our youngsters should read your above post and understand that these "traditional values" we are so eager to discard may be done so at our own peril.

I have just one small point to add. Apart from practical structures and systems built to preserve the mutual self interest, there has been an element of performing actions to benefit not the self but the interest of others. These others include humans, animals, plants and the larger eco-system. It is all of these combined that have been at the basis of the values, principles and objectives of Dharma.

I have struggled to find works of pre-Islamic Arabia and whatever little snippets one can find, the influences of Hinduism in the region are unmistakable. One often wonders about the values and systems of this society would have been before the curse of Allah fell on this populace.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

Restaurant chains increasing vegetarian menu rapidly in the country
A recent survey on pizza sales by food delivery portal foodpanda.in showed that almost four out of every five pizzas sold in Delhi are vegetarian. "It surprised us, coming from Delhi with its majority pop Punjabi population," said Rohit Chaddha, co-founder and CEO at foodpanda. He said 15% of the 4,000-odd restaurants listed on foodpanda now serve only vegetarian food. "Our observation is the trend is steadily increasing, which could be because of religion and sensitivity to animals."
"That India is the only naturally vegetarian country in the world accelerates the focus on vegetarianism that much more."
Image
Surprising that Chennai is as close to Delhi in vegetarianism. Bangalore is the lowest as expected.

As another forum participant perceptively noted sometime back, this vegetarian trend may have nothing to do with Brahmins - who are apparently increasingly returning to their roots as loud and proud beef-eaters, while the rest of the country becomes more vegetarian. :wink:
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

Pulikeshi wrote:As you scale these tribes into a more structured order, be it Varna-Jati or be it Individual-State contract, the individual becomes less critical, the weakest link is the smallest group within the larger groups. Family is critical.
Not a reaction to the above post, but a different point. The Varna-Jati order was a result of the inability of Indian native systems to organize themselves to scale. Varna-Jati cannot really be analogous to an Individual-State relationship. One can make an argument that it was because there were no large organizing bodies, resulting in a net deficiency in security, there was a tendency for local groups to tightly bond together, creating a multiplicity of jatis, layered within Varnas.
chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1723
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by chanakyaa »

Shivaji, thanks for posting the the thoughts from the Italian person on barbarians. It helps puts west in perspective, especially understanding sport celebrities. Not that it would change the theme of that post, but it was interesting to note that Romans and Greeks viewed northern populations as less civilized and Irish in the same category of barbarians. Irish who moved to US were not viewed at the same level as other immigrants, and just one level above blacks, and the northern Italians looking down on their southern Italians citizens is well documented.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

Arjun wrote: Surprising that Chennai is as close to Delhi in vegetarianism. Bangalore is the lowest as expected.

As another forum participant perceptively noted sometime back, this vegetarian trend may have nothing to do with Brahmins - who are apparently increasingly returning to their roots as loud and proud beef-eaters, while the rest of the country becomes more vegetarian. :wink:
Damn Bangaloreans should stick to eating benda kalu! :P to the reprogramming center with them! :mrgreen:

Why not just force everyone to be vegetarians, humans do not need meat to survive... force everyone to eat one meal.
maybe even omni and carnivorous animals can be bio-engineered to become vegetarians...

No matter the data is only for Pizza food delivery by foodpanda -
perhaps the answer is that more couch potatoes are vegetarian foodpanda pizza lovers... Delhi wins? :shock:

Theory does not fit reality, no problem, fix reality! and yes, Damn those Bangaloreans!
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by TSJones »

It would appear that Western Universalism has struck a chord with Modi:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/india ... es-n216511

And I do believe I saw a picture of Modi talking to Obama w/o an interpreter at the MLK memorial in DC. :)
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Rony »

TSJones wrote:It would appear that Western Universalism has struck a chord with Modi
So the 'westerners' now are appropriating cleanliness as 'western' idea ? That idea and attitude itself is a sign of western universalism
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

TSJones wrote:It would appear that Western Universalism has struck a chord with Modi:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/india ... es-n216511

And I do believe I saw a picture of Modi talking to Obama w/o an interpreter at the MLK memorial in DC. :)
Well here are all the great things that the US was doing for sanitation in the 1950s that India didn't do - like spraying DDT on cattle, moving garbage from alleys to central dumps and the perfectly "sanitary" habit of burning garbage. We have a long way to go in India

Image
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by panduranghari »

shiv wrote:
Western societies have assumed that morality is linked to religion because they come from a predominantly Christian background - and the Abrahamic religions simply stole and digested morality and claimed it as their original idea, which it is not. Morality is a biological survival function. But when western societies became "liberal" after the 1960s and started talking of Universalism, they decided to discard religion. And when they discarded religion (Christianity) they also discarded the morality that they thought was part of religion and not part of human social biology. This is GIGO. It will be an epic fail. Marriage, fidelity and family survival are essential for the human race.
Shiv ji,

You may have read this. Or may be this will interest you.

Brief History of Hindu Marriage part 1 of 5
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

^^
Thx Pandurangahari.

Here is a piece from the Hindu which quotes a survey that says "Norway is the best place to grow old" and Afghanistan the worst. Of course it may be a paid "news" item..
http://www.thehindu.com/news/internatio ... 466654.ece
A global index reflecting economic security, health and other factors
This is yet another "index" that takes in factors that are made up in some western country which then self-ranks western countries as the highest - without taking into account factors considered important in India and other eastern nations like family support and family integrity.

If the factors taken into consideration are "state support" and "insurance" and "government supported health schemes" then the countries where government, rather than family play the "big brother" role will always score.

In the long term - for populous nations like India - we cannot expect the government to provide for the elderly. An article I had linked from elsewhere pointed out that even in Europe - there was a huge difference between people growing old in Norway and Sweden- countries that can afford immigrant labour, versus Spain and Greece who cannot afford immigrant labour.

Not surprisingly one finds that there are businesses investing in making money out of old age that are cropping up. The point is that these indices have nothing to do with a dharmic ideal of care of the elderly - but more about a profit making business out of old age.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/busin ... d=all&_r=0
This link is unashamedly an advertisement for a business that makes money out of ageing.See the second quote below
As the old safety nets erode, European states are searching for formulas to reduce health care and retirement costs in the face of strong demand for services.

So how will the next generation fund its needs? The solution is part private, part public and the answer, of course, varies from country to country, shaped by national regulations and the relative generosity of taxpayers.

Governments, in general, are encouraging ways to help seniors remain outside of costly state-backed institutions. As the onus shifts to the individual, an increasing number of companies have seen an opportunity for profit. Market innovations range from new types of insurance policies, to specialized care homes and communities - for those who can afford them.
and
"The traditional care-giving scheme is breaking down, and that creates opportunities," said Fernando López Clemente, managing director of Sanyres Mediterranea, a luxury retirement joint venture between Bancaja Habitat and Grupo Prasa, a real estate company. It plans to build continuous-care communities along the Spanish coasts in the next five years. The first, the €50 million, or $67.4 million, Santa Pola Life Resort on the Costa Blanca, will feature shops, a theater, 24-hour security, €2,000-per-month health care packages. It opens in 2008 and backers hope to attract Spaniards and Northern European retirees seeking sunnier climes.
Here we have the western universal ideal of "freedom of information" and "capitalist profit making" coming together with paid whore media to make money out of a social problem.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

On the general issue of copying the west for sanitation - we need to keep our eyes wide open - because a blind admiration of what is given can be seriously dangerous while someone makes a handsome profit. People are still promoting DDT - believe it or not

http://www.panna.org/issues/persistent- ... -ddt-story
Capitalizing on the iconic status of DDT, these groups are promoting widespread use of the chemical for malaria control as part of a broader effort to manufacture doubt about the dangers of pesticides, and to promote their anti-regulatory, free market agenda while attempting to undermine and roll back the environmental movement's legacy.

Attacks on Carson from groups like The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Africa Fighting Malaria portray DDT as the simple solution to malaria,
Meanwhile in Yamrika..
DDT was one of the first chemicals in widespread use as a pesticide. Following World War II, it was promoted as a wonder-chemical, the simple solution to pest problems large and small. Today, nearly 40 years after DDT was banned in the U.S., we continue to live with its long-lasting effects:

Food supplies: USDA found DDT breakdown products in 60% of heavy cream samples, 42% of kale greens, 28% of carrots and lower percentages of many other foods.
Body burden: DDT breakdown products were found in the blood of 99% of the people tested by CDC.
Health impacts: Girls exposed to DDT before puberty are 5 times more likely to develop breast cancer in middle age, according to the President’s Cancer Panel.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:This is yet another "index" that takes in factors that are made up in some western country which then self-ranks western countries as the highest - without taking into account factors considered important in India and other eastern nations like family support and family integrity
Underlying these indices are ideas. Ideas of independence as opposed to mutual dependence, ideas of freedom as opposed to bonds that bind, ideas of serving the self interest within the confines of the law as opposed to the idea of balancing the self interest with those of others or IOW sacrificing the concept of instant gratification of the self interest to its maximum.

By not preserving Varna's and not providing more institutional support to Ashramas, Indian society blindly copies the concepts and values behind these western indices. If there is a way to index the value of a true Brahmana (as per me, someone who has forsaken all of their Artha) or a Kshatriya (who has forsaken the pursuit of wealth), if there is a way to measure the activities of someone in the Vanaprastha and Sanysam stages of their lives, then we would be talking of new indices to look up to, indices that have a fundamentally different value system at play.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

Pulikeshi wrote:Damn Bangaloreans should stick to eating benda kalu! :P to the reprogramming center with them! :mrgreen:

Why not just force everyone to be vegetarians, humans do not need meat to survive... force everyone to eat one meal.
maybe even omni and carnivorous animals can be bio-engineered to become vegetarians...
Surely you jest, Sir. :wink: Most countries don't even have laws against cannibalism - the only reason it has practically disappeared (one hopes !) is due to societal pressure and increasing universalism in concepts of morality & cultural norms !

If you ask me, I rather like the 'Gujarat Model' in this regard. One reason CNN-IBN reports 45% vegetarianism in Gujarat as opposed to 2% in say Kerala, is due to the following:
Jains are less than 1% of Gujarat’s population but are the major representatives of its cuisine. This is because the Gujaratis you know outside of the state are most likely Jain (Shah, Mehta, Sanghvi, etc.) or Bania, who are also oppressively vegetarian and also a tiny group. These are the communities that travel for trade and take their food with them. The other reason is that many Gujaratis bow to the mercantile ethic of these two communities and will accept their superiority culturally.

India's vegetarian percentage at ~40% (including the eggetarian segment) is many multiples higher than that of any other region anywhere in the world. India accounts for the bulk (>70%) of vegetarians globally, and that is the way it has always been historically since vegetarianism became popular among the Indian elite and spread to other pagan & similarly high-IQ races like the Greeks.

Domestic elite & intellectual classes in India have always favored vegetarianism (like the elite in the West today where percentages are much lower). This seems to be have been historically counterbalanced by the entry of external elite into India as conquerors who brought in their own unrefined food habits. If we consider the mercantile classes as the new elite of the current era - we are back to an age, at least, in India where vegetarians dominate (something like 70% of Indian billionaires are probably vegetarian :wink: ).
No matter the data is only for Pizza food delivery by foodpanda -
perhaps the answer is that more couch potatoes are vegetarian foodpanda pizza lovers... Delhi wins? :shock:

Theory does not fit reality, no problem, fix reality! and yes, Damn those Bangaloreans!
Food Panda only reflects what we already know from CNN-IBN statistics on regional distribution of vegetarianism. The south is generally low (though Karnataka is the highest in the South, probably due to Lingayats adding their heft). West, North-West and Central-West are the highest in vegetarianism due to Bania-Vaishnav-Arya Samaj influence.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

Arjun wrote: Surely you jest, Sir. :wink: Most countries don't even have laws against cannibalism - the only reason it has practically disappeared (one hopes !) is due to societal pressure and increasing universalism in concepts of morality & cultural norms !
What no - "A modest proposal?" :mrgreen:
My sarcasm is perhaps not appropriate -
but just to ponder scaling and its impact on food habits as India becomes a 1.5 billion people
from few hundred thousands even couple of centuries ago...

Having an ideological position does not help, the facts are there for anyone interested to see...
The squeamishness on killing animals for food has really got worse, and rightly so, given how we treat them
as this scaling has caused humans to do unpardonable things in the name of progress.
Here to be specific I mean, the pumping of animals with anti-biotics, supplements, hormones, etc.
Further, the slow bleed killing of animals for better quality meat or religious purposes seems unnecessary as well.

That said, while it is a personal choice to consume or not, the choice of humane killing, processing and
consumption of animals is an imperative so long as there are humans that consume animals for food.
That which is consumed and that which consumes are related and both mistaken, but it is nature's way...

Finally, one can kill the heart and the endocrine system as much with vegetarian carbo loaded diet as much as
one can develop cancers or other inflammatory diseases by consuming excess red meat, etc...
All food in moderation and in proportion to the natural balance allows humans to be a participant in nature.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by johneeG »

shiv wrote: This is how I see it and it is no less harsh in some ways.

Despite our human belief that we are special all we ever do is eat and reproduce. If humans did nothing other than eating and reproducing like molluscs, spiders and rabbits - we would still be able to explain most of human history. If we don't eat, the individual dies and if we don't reproduce the group dies. One can express this as a very strong urge for the individual to stay alive and to propagate the group, so there is a group urge to survive. Within limits, death is avoided (for oneself and one's own group). Biologically this urge translates into a very strong desire to eat - with "pleasure" coming from eating, and a very strong desire to reproduce with "pleasure" coming from activities that lead to reproduction. Crudely put - all that every life form desires is to eat and fu(k. Nothing more. And that is true for humans as well.

But some organization has gone into promoting these two basic activities with the fundamental goal of group survival. I will stick with human organization for group survival. For the group to survive the individual must eat and he and she must get together to reproduce.
AhAra-nidrA-bhaya-maithunam cha
samAnam_etat_pashubhir_narANAm |
dharmo hi teShAm adhiko visheSho
dharmeNa hInAH pashubhiH samAnAH||

आहार-निद्रा-भय-मैथुनं च समानमेतत्पशुभिर्नराणाम् ।
धर्मो हि तेषामधिको विशेषो धर्मेण हीनाः पशुभिः समानाः ॥

Eating, Sleeping, Fear and Reproduction are common to all creatures. Dharma is the differentiating factor. The one without Dharma is same as an animal(or lower creature which only eats, sleeps, fears and reproduces).

What is this Dharma? Why is it the differentiating factor? Why should it be followed?
For the individual to eat, the group needs to provide food for vulnerable individuals like the young. That has led to some specialization like techniques and tools for hunting and agriculture.

For the individual to reproduce, male must mate with female. But pregnant females and females with young children are vulnerable and need to be fed for survival. Why should any male help them survive? After all the urge to eat and reproduce is strong and if some females are pregnant or nursing the healthy male need to look for a willing female to mate with rather than waste his time and energy feeding some female and child. In fact even a pregnant female or nursing mother is sexually attractive and all the male needs to do is mate, not hang around feeding the female.

In a small, ancient group of humans - young, strong sexually active males would not have had (and still do not have) any reason to stick with a single partner. They need food and they need sex. Biologically it is the female who has everything to gain (for survival) in trying to get one male partner to help her out while she is pregnant or nursing. Technically it is perfectly fine if she gets herself impregnated by one male but manages to get some other male to do the looking after. But the problem is holding on to this one male if other unattached females are attracting his attention and trying to get impregnated by him.

In a situation where one male, after some effort, has found one female to mate with and is doing her favors (getting her food?) in exchange for regular mating, the female is still attractive to other males. The only way a male can keep getting his sex is to fight off the other males. If however the female herself ditches him and gives every male sex, no single male has any incentive to pay long term attention to any individual female. In a society where sex leads to pregnancy (a normal unmodified human society), this situation is a problem because after several rounds of sex and fun the female gets pregnant and becomes vulnerable and needs support with food and protection. If she has not managed to get one male to support her for all the sex she gives him, she is left high and dry. If she has had multiple partners who have had their fill of sex and gone their way, none of them is interested in supporting a woman with child. In a sense there is some incentive for both partners to stick to each other for mutual benefit. She helps him hunt or guards the crop against pests and keeps a place for him to stay warm with her. He in turn gets sex and sticks with her.

Here then we have the beginning of a primitive kind of "single partner" morality that is linked to survival and biology. It is possible to use a similar process of reasoning link many other rules of morality with the need for survival and preservation of the group (society). For example, food obtained by one can be stolen by another. Having a partner helps guard that food when the owner's attention is diverted. The punishment received for trying to steal food or a partner is the basis for a primitive "do not steal" and "stay faithful to your partner" type moral rules. Morality is linked to biology and survival, not religion. Marriage too is an offshoot of this morality, again linked to group peace and group survival
It starts with Kaama i.e. desire. Not just sexual desire but any desire.(As already mentioned, eating sleeping and mating are common. Eating refers to all platonic sensual experiences i.e. eating, smelling, touching, ...etc). Lets say I want to eat because I am hungry. For that, I need to earn my food and keep my food until I eat it. This is not such an easy thing. It involves lot of work(either by me or others). Either I directly work for my own food or others work for me and give me food.

Now, lets say I go one step further and think,"How do I ensure that I not only get food for today, but I continue to get food everyday(or most days)?" This is long-term thinking. It is still Kaama but long-term sustainability of it. Here, Artha comes into picture.

Artha is: How do I create systems which will ensure that they will fulfill my desires and needs(Kaama)?

So, from Kaama, we have now graduated to Artha because Artha is long-term sustainable Kaama.

For example, an animal can somehow get food for one day perhaps in the wild on its own. But, how will it ensure that it gets food most of the days in the wild and continues to survive various circumstances? Its best bet is to be part of a system. Generally, it means being part of a group.

This is Artha level. So, from here on, Artha starts. That means, one has to take care how to interact with others. This is the beginning of power dynamics, hierarchies, ...etc.

Generally, even animals realize the importance of Artha. All animals instinctively realize the group dynamics and play their respective roles in their societies, so that the system is productive and everyone can benefit.

But, where does Dharma come into the picture?

Dharma is the next-level of Artha. Dharma is long-term sustainable Artha.

Lets say someone asks,"How do I ensure that the systems(Artha) work not only now, but are sustainable in the long-term?"

Systems are sustainable only if they live harmoniously in the universe. The nature is designed in a way that one creature cannot live without hurting another creature. So, violence is unavoidable. It is not possible to follow absolute non-violence(atleast, it is not possible for everyone). But, at the same time, the nature is designed in such a way that absolute greed is not viable.

This seems like contradiction. But strictly speaking, there is no irony at all. Absolute greed is not viable. For any system to work, it needs many different beings to come together and work. No being can survive on its own. Every being needs other beings for various reasons. So, any intelligent person will be able to see that one has to take care of others, so that they will take care of you. If you exploit others due to greed, then eventually it will lead to your own destruction. This is the way world is designed. So, absolute greed in untenable.

Most societies recognize that absolute greed is untenable. That one has to take care of other human beings, plants and animals because one's own welfare is dependent on them. For example, the saying 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' conveys this in a round-about way. See just as you will expect your friends to come to your help during your distress, others will also expect you to come to their help when they are in distress. If you don't help others when they are in distress, then no one will come to your aid when you are in distress. This much is recognized by even animals. So, they help those whom they think will help them when they are in distress. Generally, it means helping people of our family/clan/herd or neighbours, so that they help us when we are in distress.

That means each member of the system has to overcome one's absolute greed for long term and more sustainable welfare. That requires some sacrifice from each member to protect the system. If you protect the system, system will protect you.

Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah is very interesting in this. It is saying that those who protect dharma will be protected. That means 'those who protect others will be protected'. It also means that 'those who hurt others will be hurt'. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah means that best way to serve your greed is by sacrifice. Infact, this is also declared in upanishads: "thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).This is the interesting aspect.

So, Dharma(Morality) is basically long-term sustainable Artha(Profits/Systems).
Artha(Profits/Systems) itself is basically long-term sustainable Kaama(Desires).

Now, basic power hierarchies are part of Artha. How to gain power is Artha.
But, long-term sustainable approaches to maintaining the system involves morality.
It is only in Hindu dharma that morality and rules for group survival, individual and group duties are listed without any imposition of religion. Religions like Christianity and Islam picked up on pre-existing morality and rewrote them as if morality did not exist before the religions were invented.

Western societies have assumed that morality is linked to religion because they come from a predominantly Christian background - and the Abrahamic religions simply stole and digested morality and claimed it as their original idea, which it is not. Morality is a biological survival function. But when western societies became "liberal" after the 1960s and started talking of Universalism, they decided to discard religion. And when they discarded religion (Christianity) they also discarded the morality that they thought was part of religion and not part of human social biology. This is GIGO. It will be an epic fail. Marriage, fidelity and family survival are essential for the human race.
The basic definition of Dharma is:
Para-upakaraya punyaya papaya para-peedanam

Benefiting others is punya/dharma.
Paining others is papa/adharma.

This is a very important and simple definition of dharma. And since it is given by none other than Vyasa himself, it is authentic. So, we don't have to search for our own definitions of dharma.

What are the basic dharmas for all human beings?
Ahimsa - Non-violence
Sathyam - Truth
Astheyam - not-stealing
Saucham - Cleanliness
Indhriyanigraham - controlling the senses.

Any being that follows these Dharmas is considered higher. Those who only eat, sleep, fear and mate are considered lower.

If even animals follow these Dharmas, they are considered higher. Thats why, one has stories about animals raising to higher level when they followed ahimsa or indhriya-nigraham ...etc. For example,
Shree Raama in Valmiki Raamayana wrote: श्रूयते हि कपोतेन शत्रुः शरणम् आगतः ||६-१८-२४
अर्चितः च यथा न्यायम् स्वैः च मांसैर् निमन्त्रितः |

24. shruuyate hi = it is heard; kapotena;by a dove; shatruH = an enemy; aagataH = came; sharaNam = for a refuge; architashcha = was received; yathaanyaayam = according to rules of hospitality; nimantritashcha = and was invited for a feast; svaiH = with its own; maamsaiH = flesh.

"It is narrated how by a dove, its enemy ( a fowler) when it came for a refuge, was received according to rules of hospitality and was invited for a feast with its own flesh."

Verse Locator

स हि तम् प्रतिजग्राह भार्या हर्तारम् आगतम् ||६-१८-२५
कपोतो वानर श्रेष्ठ किम् पुनर् मद् विधो जनः |

25. saH kaptaH = that dove; pratijagraaha hi = indeed accepted as a guest; tam = the fowler; aagatam = as he came; bharyaahantaaram = although he killed its wife; kimpunaH = how much more; janaH = a man; madvidhaH = like me?

"O, the excellent of monkeys! The aforesaid dove indeed accepted as a guest, the fowler as he came, although he killed its wife .How much more a man like me has to do?"
Link

Notice the last Dharma: Indhriya-nigraham i.e. controlling the sense. Because if the senses are not controlled, then such a person will not care about Dharma or Artha. He will want instant gratification of his senses without understanding the future consequences. For example, a very thirsty deer will drink water from a pond without noticing or caring about the crocodile waiting to kill it.

So, some level of control on the senses become important. But, this is a full circle. It all started with Kaama or desires(i.e. desires to gratify the senses) and now, to fulfill those desires, one has to control the senses.

So, total sensual appeasement is not sustainable.
"thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).
"thyagena ekena amruthathva manasuhu (Immortality is achieved only by sacrificing.)
I.e. sustainability is achieved only by sacrificing.

Why the need for sustainability?
If there is no sustainability then there will be constant fear(Bhayam). Moksha(Freedom) from fear is the result of following Dharma(morality) because it leads to sustainable Artha(Systems) which give sustainable gratification of desires(Kaama).
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Arjun »

Pulikeshi wrote:Having an ideological position does not help, the facts are there for anyone interested to see...
This is less about ideology, and more about marketing & ownership rights for India - as far as I am concerned.

So, I would be the last person to take offense if my dinner companion were to consume meat when dining out with me. But I do take offense to India's bragging rights and pole position in vegetarianism being taken away from her !

Modi made a start in NY by reclaiming Indian ownership of Yoga. Ideally when speaking of climate change at the UN he should also have made the connection between India's vegetarianism and its beneficial impact on climate change. But then, there's always a next time...

If even on a thread that purports to challenge Western Universalism, there seems to be embarrassment in acknowledging India's leadership in vegetarianism - you know there's a real problem out there. :wink:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

One of the less documented facts about meat consumption in India (and I answer as a resident of Bangalore) is the number of people who are vegetarians at home, never cook meat at home, but eat meat at parties and other functions where it is served sanitized and appearing as delicious and as harmless as a pakora. The other fact that does not come out is that with easy availability of meat, traditional meat eaters such as Muslims who in their parents' generation consumed meat only twice week are now eating meat every day in a ditto copy of the west.

I suppose it is still possible to visit a pub in Poodlestan and ask for a "Ploughman's lunch" which will get one a loaf of bread and a hunk of cheese. No meat. Not because these guys were vegetarian but meat was not available to be eaten every day every meal even up until the 1960s.

Getting everyone to eat meat every meal every day is good for the sellers. It is not good for health and it is not good for the environment. Until the late 20th century an all meat diet every day of the week was an exception - other than those who lived on seafood and for hunter gatherers. There was always some non meat meal like cereal, bread, gruel, soup or nuts.

https://woods.stanford.edu/environmenta ... nvironment
Small farms with free-roaming animals are disappearing in many parts of the world, he said. Currently, three-quarters of the world's poultry supply, half of the pork and two-thirds of the eggs come from industrial meat factories, according to the FAO.

The concentration of livestock increases the environmental burden, Falcon added. "Issues, like runoff and odor, that were present in rather small and diverse quantities 40 years ago have now become concentrated and significant," he said.

The meat industry also has a significant impact on global warming. Livestock production accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, including 9 percent of carbon dioxide and 37 percent of methane gas emissions worldwide, according to the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, an international consortium of government and private agencies based at FAO headquarters in Rome.

More than two-thirds of all agricultural land is devoted to growing feed for livestock, while only 8 percent is used to grow food for direct human consumption, LEAD reported. If the entire world population were to consume as much meat as the Western world does-176 pounds of meat per capita per year- the global land required would be two-thirds more than what is presently used, according to Vaclav Smil, professor of environment and geography at the University of Manitoba and participant in the EVP study.

LEAD researchers also found that the global livestock industry uses dwindling supplies of freshwater, destroys forests and grasslands, and causes soil erosion, while pollution and the runoff of fertilizer and animal waste create dead zones in coastal areas and smother coral reefs. There also is concern over increased antibiotic resistance, since livestock accounts for 50 percent of antibiotic use globally, according to LEAD.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the- ... roduction/
  • Each year the livestock sector globally produces 586 million tons of milk, 124 million tons of poultry, 91 million tons of pork, 59 million tons of cattle and buffalo meat, and 11 million tons of meat from sheep and goats. That 285 million tons of meat altogether — or about 36 kg (80 lb.) per person, if it were all divided evenly. It’s not — Americans eat 122 kg (270 lb.) of meat a year on average, while Bangladeshis eat 1.8 kg (4 lb).
  • Of the 95 million tons of beef produced in the world in 2000, the vast majority came from cattle in Latin America, Europe and North America. All of sub-Saharan Africa — a region with nearly three times as many people as the entire U.S. — produced just 3 million tons of beef.
  • 1.3 billion tons of grain are consumed by farm animals each year — and nearly all of it is fed to livestock, mostly pork and poultry, in the developed world and in China and Latin America. All of the livestock in sub-Saharan Africa eat just 50 million tons of grain a year, otherwise subsisting on grasses and on crop residue.
  • The poor feed quality in impoverished regions like sub-Saharan Africa means that a cow there may consume as much as 10 times more feed — mostly grasses — to produce a kilogram of protein than a cow raised in richer regions. That lack of efficiency also means that cattle in countries like Ethiopia and Somalia account for as much as 1,000 kg of carbon for every kg of protein they produce — in the form of methane from manure as well as from the reduced carbon absorption that results when forests are converted to pastureland. That’s 10 times higher than the amount of carbon released per kg of protein in many parts of the U.S. and Europe, where livestock production is much more intensive.
  • About that: in North America or Europe, a cow consumes about 75 kg to 300 kg of dry matter — grass or grain — to produce a kg of protein. In sub-Saharan Africa, a cow might need 500 kg to 2,000 kg of dry matter to produce a kg of protein, because of the poor feed quality in arid countries and because of the high mortality rates in herds of often undernourished and sick animals.
  • The highest total of livestock-related greenhouse-gas emissions comes from the developing world, which accounts for 75% of the global emissions from cattle and other ruminants and 56% of the global emissions from poultry and pigs.
  • The most climate-friendly meats comes from pigs and poultry, which account for only 10% of total livestock greenhouse-gas emissions while contributing more than three times as much meat globally as cattle. Pork and poultry are also more efficient for feed, requiring up to five times less feed to produce a kg of protein than a cow, a sheep or a goat.
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by abhischekcc »

Oh, so now the 'developed' world is saying that it is poor people eating meat that is causing global warming, not white suburbans who drive a gas guzzler to post a letter.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

abhischekcc wrote:Oh, so now the 'developed' world is saying that it is poor people eating meat that is causing global warming, not white suburbans who drive a gas guzzler to post a letter.
Well technically yes - but now i am seeing these reports as a tussle between vested interests. So the western meat lobby says - Hey those Afros should feed their cattle with what we feed them because they are so inefficient. And in the west cattle are fed with offal (non veg!!) and antibiotics and hormones which, if used in Africa would increase their meat yield per kg of fodder. But none of this takes away the fact that the US for example consumes 126 kg per person per year in meat - i.e each man woman and child gets 300 grams meat per day, while Bangladesh people get 300 grams of meat in 60 days.

Animals are being made to hog up a whole lot of resources (water, arable land) so that they can be slaughtered and eaten by humans. Medical research is going apeshit on the benefits of protein - at least some of which I am certain will prove to be bullshit and motivated research. There is a whole lot of money revolving around the meat business and like the gun lobby the meat interests are very powerful.

Vegetarianism undermines all this and I think it is necessary to promote periodic "relative" vegetarianism actively even if you are a meat eater. (for example 14 or more vegetarian meals a week). Compared to the average American many Indian Muslims are "relatively" vegetarian even now - eating meat in just 3 or 4 meals out of 21 meals a week. I mean there is meat eating and there is meat eating. Even on Indian forums (not BRF) I have seen desis being uppity about they way they enjoy their roast beef while the other puny Indian just plucks at his chicken. This is the fractal recursive sepoy behaviour shown by the Indian who is now a full blown western style meat eater being critical of his SDRE cousin.

So many Indians have felt inferior to the meat eating westerner that the Indian who goes furthest in copying the western meat eating style considers himself superior and more macho than others. As if eating lumps of rare beef, increasing the divorce rate and allowing gay marriages will somehow make India like America and create the development we need with sanitation for all and Gen 6 fighter aircraft. Cargo cult behaviour.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:On parenting and marriage:
http://qz.com/273255/how-american-paren ... -marriage/
Great choice of articles, as usual.

The above article is particularly an eye opener - it explains some of the behaviour I have observed. This is "individual rights" gone wild beyond all sense - and as usual the "state" playing daddy and mummy with laws restricting and regulating parental action. All "well intentioned" of course but a lot of well intentioned stuff is pure garbage.
Vadivel
BRFite
Posts: 435
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Vadivel »

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:On parenting and marriage:
http://qz.com/273255/how-american-paren ... -marriage/
That's a complete BS article. It somehow criticises the overly-attached parentage of American mothers, which doesn't exist much on ground.
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

Arjun wrote: If even on a thread that purports to challenge Western Universalism, there seems to be embarrassment in acknowledging India's leadership in vegetarianism - you know there's a real problem out there. :wink:
There is problem only in your ideological argument that Western Universalism is meat eating and Indian one is vegetarian. There is no hesitation in acknowledging that WU got the scaling problem wrong and is trying to recover from it - especially various healthy eating movements that have grown recently in the West. Irony is they seem to be fixing themselves faster than the SD spouting, vegetarian touting, carbo loading folks.. See even Mrs. Obama is doing her part in bringing visibility to this issue... something I am sure Namo can do for India as well.

There are benefits to eating certain kinds of meat, just as there are benefits to eating certain kinds of vegetables, fruits, herbs, medicinal plants, etc. Now if you have objection to drinking cod liver oil, eating gelatin in medicines, beef in flavoring for fries, lard to cook, etc. One can fully understand that such information should be available for the individual to make a choice. There are several non-vegetarians that I know who are against clandestine use of animal products to reduce processing and manufacturing costs, etc. One can even understand and appreciate that scaling issues in WU's approach to food in general and perhaps meat in particular are still flawed and need more sustainable local farming responses. The issue is not vegetarianism versus non in my mind, it is between scaling and centralized methods adopted by WU and the SD alternative that are more sustainable and local.

My humble suggestion is that SD and the Indian way is to consume food in proportion to your natural tendency, eat higher nutrition least processed food. Encourage more organic food. Avoid eating large quantities and encourage moderate fasting based on person's health and physician's advice. Update the practice of Ayurveda for the world we live in - I have several ideas here. Practice yoga!
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

rhytha wrote: That's a complete BS article. It somehow criticises the overly-attached parentage of American mothers, which doesn't exist much on ground.
No offense, but that is not my understanding of the article. The premise is that marriages in the West are based on love, but mothers are asked to magically love their children more than their husbands post marriage. I'd contend that this is not just the West's challenge, but nevertheless, I disagree with the underlying assumption that marriages in the West fail because of this unreasonable expectation on the mother and the conclusion therefore that american parenting is killing the marriage.

Was talking to someone recently, much younger, who comes from two generation of broken families. This person is getting married now and was very worried about his tenacity and fidelity. These are human problem with complex causes to think that one variable explains the action of individuals or that of a family unit is filled with hubris! The fact that no fault divorce, lack of positive role models, credit issues, lack of social structure and visible forms of acknowledgement of different phases of life, etc. etc. are all issues at hand.

The real issue is picking one cause for explaining a complex effect. If only american mothers loved their husbands more and less their children, then and only then american marriage can be saved. Put that way, the ridiculousness of the author's argument stands naked. I'd ask the author, how does one quantify love?
Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Pulikeshi »

shiv wrote: So many Indians have felt inferior to the meat eating westerner that the Indian who goes furthest in copying the western meat eating style considers himself superior and more macho than others. As if eating lumps of rare beef, increasing the divorce rate and allowing gay marriages will somehow make India like America and create the development we need with sanitation for all and Gen 6 fighter aircraft. Cargo cult behaviour.
Nail on the head - sad fact is even good schooling does not teach how much protein to consume per day. Worse still there is no mention of more nutrition and less calories. There are plenty of folks in the West who think that eating meat (protein) is all that is needed for the body - they incorrectly think carbs are bad (without understanding good carbs, etc.) and rarely if ever eat vegetables or fruits. Now Indian's looking at this feel they need to mimic this is really strange...

A lot of the behavior is those of folks wearing a "Iron Maiden" t-shirt without knowing what it is... :mrgreen:
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12062
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Vayutuvan »

Pulikeshi, Shiv, Arjun and others: Nice posts on vegetarianism. I see this cargo-cult behavior not only in city dwellers but it is pervasive across middle and small town and village India.
Last edited by Vayutuvan on 05 Oct 2014 08:49, edited 1 time in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Pulikeshi wrote: Nail on the head - sad fact is even good schooling does not teach how much protein to consume per day. Worse still there is no mention of more nutrition and less calories. There are plenty of folks in the West who think that eating meat (protein) is all that is needed for the body - they incorrectly think carbs are bad (without understanding good carbs, etc.) and rarely if ever eat vegetables or fruits. Now Indian's looking at this feel they need to mimic this is really strange...

A lot of the behavior is those of folks wearing a "Iron Maiden" t-shirt without knowing what it is... :mrgreen:
There is a double whammy for Indians here.

Americans are supremely confident about what they say and do and believe that they are always right even when they are wrong. They are right about technology, research and education, but wrong on a whole lot of moral and social values.

Indians on the other hand grow up with low self esteem and an inferiority complex where they believe that India and Indian society represents all that is wrong. Indians minds are a ready "fertile field" to believe that everything that appears from America is right.

Unfortunately many Indians do a "cargo cult" copy of the easy things like meat eating and boorish behavior, but fail to understand that the really tough things to copy, which we need to copy, are education, research and technology development - for which we don't need to change our core values and imagining that copying American behavior will somehow lead to American style advancement in wealth and technology.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12067
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by A_Gupta »

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by Aditya_V »

I think the best example is Australian coaches from Dennis Lilee to the guy coaching Kings XI Punjab, they all openly state that if you can eat meat you can perform activities like hitting balls or bowling fast. Dennis Lillee was scathing of Peter Siddle.

Wonder what happens to meat eating Indians, including IM in the hands of these coaches who keep stating you don't rare or raw meat you can't bowl fast. No wonder they come out bowling slowly. I am sure these coaches must be ridiculing Indian Muslims for eating halal meat since it has blood nutrients drained.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Aditya_V wrote:I think the best example is Australian coaches from Dennis Lilee to the guy coaching Kings XI Punjab, they all openly state that if you can eat meat you can perform activities like hitting balls or bowling fast. Dennis Lillee was scathing of Peter Siddle.
It is easy to get the effect of nutrition wrong.

More meat (protein - even "veg" whey protein) is definitely useful to build up muscle. But no one (not even doctors and nutritionists) know the effects of a practically pure meat diet on human populations over generations. It is common knowledge among sports persons and sports coaches that "body building"/weightlifting requires a type of muscle building which is totally useless if you want to be an agile tennis player. Soldier hunks are not necessarily the best soldiers for every task. These differences are most easily compared when you compare long distance runners with short distance dash runners.

Also - if you look at the Indian population which has evolved over the last 5-10,000 years witha largely vegetarian diet with some meat. In the last 100 years "normal" Indian grains like Jowar, bajra, ragi etc have all been sidelined in favour of wheat and rice. We tend to believe that Indians are rice and wheat eaters. This was not true 200 years ago when there was less rice and wheat available. We have a lot more milk available now and of course meat availability has hit the roof in the last 30 years.

But if you look at ancient Indian/ayurvedic and other knowledge of diet and its effect - those guys have studied diet for centuries and have left behind some information about health and diet. Why are we not looking at that? If we look at that we will be eating a lot less meat that is recommended by modern "dieticians"

So no one knows exactly what is happening to populations - a lot of dietetics is simply guesswork with no knowledge of what will happen in 100 or 200 or 500 years
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

A_Gupta wrote:https://www.facebook.com/957kjr/photos/ ... 18/?type=1

Will try to embed the image later.
Image
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by shiv »

Whoa! Another fascinating and informative link. I was afraid to say some things based on my own observations, but not any more.

This para sums up some of it
Likewise, Flanagan notes the pressure to take children for a seemingly endless array of after-school activities, most of which require parental chauffering. Add to this the increasing amount of parental responsibility for things their children do wrong, coupled with steady legal diminution of parental authority (Flanagan mentions an incident in which Caroline Kennedy was spanked for running off and notes that today it might result in jail time -- an exaggeration, perhaps, but not by much.) You're responsible for your kids in ways previous generations weren't, but your ability to discipline them is much reduced, and as my wife (a forensic psychologist) notes, the bad kids know that they can cow most adults by threatening to call 911 and make a bogus abuse charge. And forget disciplining your child, even with a harsh word, in a public place: At the very least, if you do you'll be looked on not as a virtuous parent helping to preserve the social fabric, but as that worst of all sinners in contemporary American culture: a meanie. And schools, anxious for parental "involvement," place far more demands on parents than they did when I was a kid.

There's also the decline in parental prestige over generations. My mother reports that when she was a newlywed (she was married in 1959) you weren't seen as fully a member of the adult world until you had kids. Nowadays to have kids means something closer to an expulsion from the adult world. People in the suburbs buy SUVs instead of minivans not because they need the four-wheel-drive capabilities, but because the SUVs lack the minivan's close association with low-prestige activities like parenting, and instead provide the aura of high-prestige activities like whitewater kayaking. Why should kayaking be more prestigious than parenting? Because parenting isn't prestigious in our society. If it were, childless people would drive minivans just to partake of the aura.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

Post by member_20317 »

Shiv ji I don't remember having thanked you for the gems you leave in your large number of posts. I may or may not agree with all you have to say but I have benefited from your efforts. Thankyou saar.

....................

Re. your post above

I have heard similar stories from Himachalis, Punjabis and Biharis. Himachal I was told used to consume corn as staple and the consumption of corn is Punjab was also said to be higher than it is today.

Uttarakhand as recently as 15-20 years back saw handsome intake of Ragi (Mandua) and Millets (Jhangora/Jhungraal). I used to hate Mandua but loved millets. Today I miss Mandua. Mandua paranthas are loved every other sunday in our family. That is every other Sunday not every day, alas!

Mandua is well known in Bihar and Jharkand too, and still considered a delicacy. You are right about wheat. When as a kid, i revolted against Mandua, my people back home would bring white wheat aata and try to console the 'special guest' with it, never actually eating it themselves :P.

I used to have very a poor appetite till one day I actually smelled the fragrance of something that was probably a jowar roti from a tent housing labourers from Rajasthan (camel herding people). These people were working on a fairly big civil engineering site that required moving a lot of earth.

Actually not just the grains, even the fruits have undergone change. I was 39 when I first tasted Bel fruit juice from a road side vendor. I had taken the fruit earlier, but it is very exhausting an exercise to eat the meat of Bel fruit.

I would be happy to pay several times more for these grains but no ji, I cannot have it. Can I grow it, yes theoretically if I can afford to have a farm. The world today has become one really free place :rotfl: You can have it any colour so long as its black.
Post Reply