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.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Post by Aditya_V »

shiv wrote:It is pure sophistry to argue that India's development parameters are repeatedly quoted in the media under various headings because of great goodwill felt towards India and a genuine altruistic motive to see all Indians happy, healthy, fat and rich

Can lack of toilets, high maternal and child mortality and social inequity in India be remedied by
1. Pulling back troops from Pakistan border
2. Winding down India's nuclear and space programs
3. "Improving" press freedom and allowing certain types of literature and media to be freely available in India
4. "Improving" human rights by emulating the west in sexual freedoms
5. Signing WTO deal and allowing free imports of agricultural products and genetically modified seeds
6. Signing CTBT and FMCT
7. Allowing access to foreign NGOs to study and investigate whatever they want
8. Avoiding the production of cars or weapons before all social parameters reach Denmark levels?

If Indian social and developmental problems cannot be solved by these recommendations, why are these recommendations suggested along with a simultaneous listing of Indian developmental problems as if there is something linking them? Unless there is a clear cause-effect relationship between Indian social and development issues and the recommendations made, why are the recommendations being linked to social problems?

Why am I being told that I am paranoid and that what I am seeing is pure love and goodwill? Exactly who is stupid here?
Can I add one

9. Completely giving up Hinduism and converting to more globally accepted religions
10. Letting the Pakis and Cheenis walk all over India.

To me all these folks who keep bringing up these issues want Indians to be Silenced i.e enjoy silence of the grave.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

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

Post by habal »

Looking at a BBC presenter during news, I had an aha moment. There she was sitting cross-legged in a skirt and pretending to question another white guy over sports just after a clip on racism in USA somewhere Baton Rouge where whites were petitioning for seperate schools for white residents. The sports presenter was making some funny gestures during the while and indulging the BBC presenter in a anglo version of 'aur dekh mera kamal kudiye' kind of gimmicks. It was at that moment it dawned on me that Western Universalism was a western universe and a ecosystem created out of kicking the butts of non-whites, exploiting them, making fun of them, ridiculing them and generally making an ass of everyone else who did not resemble them. While the intent remained the same, the tactics and methods kept changing from time to time.

These countries in Africa had citizens who were slave-traded, kicked about, robbed of their wealth and put in places where they felt as strangers and treated worse than animals. The behaviour of anglo-saxons in India was well-documented.

Now these people or their children have created an entire ecosystem out of ridicule of non-whites. And our gripes with that ecosystem of arrogance betrayed often by casual racist expression and social demands to lump it and not 'whinge' about it. This is our entire gripe with 'Western Universalism' and we can't seem to be doing anything about it. And the sad thing is though this is well documented, and recognized there is nought we can do about it at present. Because there is an entire world of admirers of western narrative like the entire class of 'intellectuals' in ex-colonies, Islamic countries (like those so-called intellectuals in a neighbouring Pakistan) who look fawningly upon any western narrative with great indulgence.

Human Rights Index, Human Development Index, Happy Planet Index, Gender Development Index, Quality of Life Index are all indexes which post-Industrial European and anglo-saxon countries have aced and are cards that can be used against any number of non-white countries. Even a Japan can be castigated under 'Gender Equality Index' if they get too ambitious. It can be used to prevent these countries from claiming bigger roles in world community and keep the clique elite and as small as ever. So all of you keep working at 'bettering your indexes' while we make the rules. ehh.

These things (like the BBC presenter) should be left alone and ignored until this group can be taken head on.
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 »

habal wrote: Human Rights Index, Human Development Index, Happy Planet Index, Gender Development Index, Quality of Life Index are all indexes which post-Industrial European and anglo-saxon countries have aced and are cards that can be used against any number of non-white countries. Even a Japan can be castigated under 'Gender Equality Index' if they get too ambitious. It can be used to prevent these countries from claiming bigger roles in world community and keep the clique elite and as small as ever. So all of you keep working at 'bettering your indexes' while we make the rules. ehh.
One of the purposes of this thread is to develop indices for the west that they have to conform with. It does not matter that we are "nobodies". It's the lurkers that count.

I recall having had a huge discussion about the fact that Indians do not stand single file in a queue and they do not follow lane discipline on the road. That is because Indians do not believe in stifling regimentation and like self expression and innovation in dealing with space constraints in crowded areas.

Children have a right to have a father and a mother and clearly this right is unrecognized in the west leading to societal degradation from broken families.

There is plenty of evidence to show that overexposure to p.ornographic material as a result of mindless "freedoms" leads to severe childhood problems and sex addiction among adults.

In America there is no "right to be free from the threat of being shot" because of the insane gun laws there. The solutions being bandied about for bestial shootings - like teachers with weapons are completely ludicrous. Can anyone in the US have the right to know that there are armed people about so that they can choose to walk away or keep away? Are there public no go areas for guns where you can go and be guaranteed by law to be in an area free from guns? Maybe Americans can't say it but others can - except that SDREs are totally intimidated by massan self confidence and self assertiveness. Heck Americans themselves are under threat from their own gun owners - so what about the non existent freedoms of people who do not carry firearms and do not want to be within range of firearms?

It is only because Indians lack self esteem that they cannot speak about Indian "differences" without feeling inferior or apologetically believing that the western idea is superior. It's one thing to lag behind in technology and be less wealthy. But its is another thing altogether to be constantly bombarded with indices made up specifically to tell you that you and your kind are stupid gits. This needs to stop - or else we need to start showing how the west, with its economic and tech weatlh is still full of stupid gits.
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 »

Let me ask a serious question.

India has had malnourished children in large numbers from 1970 to the year 2000

The typical western nation has had virtually no malnourished children from 1970 to 2000

What difference has this made to anyone? India's population has still gone up. Why is it such a big thing to speak of malnutrition among children in India? Is it because so many millions of children would have been saved and would have been alive today instead of dying from malnutrition? But that would have made the population even bigger so why isn't it a good thing than many children died. Is it the injustice of inequality where some people get to feed their children and others don't? But how would this inequality get better by saving the children of the poorest people so they have bigger families?

If you step back 200 years you find that it was more food - more births,, many die but more survive. Less food fewer survive. Malnutrition is natural population control. Why do we want to keep on overfeeding every child that is born? Because the child has a right to life? But if you give the child a right to life, is it in your power to give the child a right to good life? Are you guaranteeing in any way that he will be able to live an entire life free from want - at least with regard to food? If you are not doing that what is this right to life that you are giving this child.

We have a society that values childbirths and children; it suffers pain when children suffer or die, but accepts that the loss of some children may be inevitable. We are trying to tell them that suffering and loss of children are not inevitable. Children can be saved if x, y and z are done. But when more children survive, there is less food. So we need to produce more food. And then we are left with the problem of a burgeoning population because humans are children for just 16 years or so. After that, for 50 plus years they are adults.

After ensuring that they survive to adulthood, what is society going to do for them? We are telling them, "Have fewer children" so that populations do not rise.

They are thinking, "But we think children are valuable. Children make the family happy and are useful at home and can even augment family income".

And we tell them, "No. Children must not augment your family income. They must play. You just need to enjoy fewer children"

And they think "WTF? I have little money. My parents depend on me and live with me. My wife works flat out taking care of everyone and we barely get by. If I had a son or daughter to sit at home and care for my elderly parents my wife could work and earn. Or else the child could do a bit of work and augment my income"

And we say, "No. No child work. Child must go to school. 9 to 3. Play and homework after that. No work."

"What about my elderly parents? My wife can't work because she must attend to them"

"Ideally you should put them in an old people's home. Do you have insurance? Or wait, I have a better idea. I'll send a nurse around to look in on them twice a week"

Ultimately in a free society like India free thinking people are going to say fuk you to these idiotic ideas and simply have more children and put them to work. It is not the poverty they worry about. They don't like poverty and would like to be more wealthy. But they are being told, "In order for you to get out of poverty you need to have fewer children and you need education". Fine. But fewer children mean fewer hands, and fewer hands means less income.

If you break up families, and you break up the relationships that extended families have where aunts and uncles and cousins all chip in to care for a sick person or care for children, you then have fewer people who care for you and fewer people for you to care for. In those circumstances you can become more wealthy by having fewer children. But in a large joint family set up - more hands are a part of the joy and support, despite less to go around.

More wealth inevitably means smaller families and "better" indices but that is meaningless if social support systems are broken up. In India we seriously need to look at the way social support is given and obtained before we mindlessly copy some idiotic western model because of some stupid indices. Social support from family exists even in poverty. But if family is broken the state will have to find money and only the wealthiest and relatively lightly populated states in the world have the means to offer state funded social support. It's not for nothing that family often translates into money and children are considered "wealth".
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

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

Post by habal »

From what I have seen, most Indians need western validation to present an Indian point of view. If that western backup is missing, then their self-confidence is missing as well.

There are folks who are exposed to US perfidy for decades, but will come up with statements like USA is a superpower and thus does what it pleases. But then why do they complain of the duplicity, but they still do. This duality is a result of mental colonisation and a fear to walk an independent path. The moment they break this frame of mind is the moment they gain true freedom from colonisation of western values.

The biggest fear of the colonised mind is to walk an independent path that doesn't have validation of some sort from western thought. They will seek the comfort and safety to the western crutch to form their arguments and defence, even though they well know that it will hurt them in the process.
member_28108
BRFite
Posts: 1852
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_28108 »

Americain narayana is a good example of how the political people think that that will impress people.Unfortunately or Fortunately it has become a joke
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 »

habal wrote:From what I have seen, most Indians need western validation to present an Indian point of view. If that western backup is missing, then their self-confidence is missing as well.

There are folks who are exposed to US perfidy for decades, but will come up with statements like USA is a superpower and thus does what it pleases. But then why do they complain of the duplicity, but they still do. This duality is a result of mental colonisation and a fear to walk an independent path. The moment they break this frame of mind is the moment they gain true freedom from colonisation of western values.

The biggest fear of the colonised mind is to walk an independent path that doesn't have validation of some sort from western thought. They will seek the comfort and safety to the western crutch to form their arguments and defence, even though they well know that it will hurt them in the process.
Beautifully expressed. This problem deeply affects Indian academia and media - and in fact the educated Indian of my age and 30 years older or 30 years younger than me are soaked in it. I am particularly saddened to see young Indians who have, under our very noses, acquired this attitude of needing external validation, validating what is western, and denigrating what is Indian without having stepped out of India.

Oftentimes, it is not some western entity who is bashing India about indices - it is the Indian who instantly gets irritated by a fellow Indian who says something nice about India and needs to pour a bucketful of negative indices over that guy's head to "set his thinking right" by reminding him of the degree of inferiority of himself and his kind. It is as if any Indian pride or self esteem is misplaced and should be silenced at once with a vicious thappad.
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

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

Post by symontk »

shiv wrote:Let me ask a serious question.

India has had malnourished children in large numbers from 1970 to the year 2000

The typical western nation has had virtually no malnourished children from 1970 to 2000

What difference has this made to anyone? India's population has still gone up. Why is it such a big thing to speak of malnutrition among children in India? Is it because so many millions of children would have been saved and would have been alive today instead of dying from malnutrition? But that would have made the population even bigger so why isn't it a good thing than many children died. Is it the injustice of inequality where some people get to feed their children and others don't? But how would this inequality get better by saving the children of the poorest people so they have bigger families?
Classical mistake. Please take the example of Kerala. Do a projection based on the population of Kerala based on the early 20th century population and you will get a population of 5 crores by 2011. If you take a projection from 1971, you will get a population of 4 crores. If you do a projection from 2001, you will get 3.5 crores. But what was the population of Kerala in 2011, 3.3 crores

You can save people being born when the survival rate is high among babies and elderly. That's a human tendency. Its natural

Adding to that no person in Kerala thinks of staying alone without marriage etc
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 »

Another bashing point about India is "poverty". Indians should do nothing other than build toilets and reduce population because of poverty. Everything else is wrong.

Poverty is a funny thing and Indians are at the forefront of misinterpreting poverty and wealth.

India has a median per capita income of US$ 600 per year, which is about Rs 3000 per month per person. That means that half of all Indians have access to Rs 3000 a month or less.

India's "middle class", on the other hand has a monthly family income of about Rs 7500. But family size in India is between 4 and 5. (Let's say 4.5). That means per capita middle class income is about Rs 1700 a month. That is less than a dollar a day. That means India's middle class are all below poverty levels by international metrics.
On the other hand India's middle class look like this image (linked below) and own ACs, refrigerators, TVs, vehicles and cellphones

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dyna ... 27245f.jpg

If you look at the other side "poverty" in America (for 2014) was defined as US$ 500 per capita per month (US$ 24,000 pa for a family of 4) - so in America if you earn Rs 30,000 a month per capita or less, you are "poor". A per capita income of Rs 3.6 lakhs a year in America is "poverty"

On the other hand income tax assessee stats in India show that maybe only 3-4 million people in India actually earn more than 3.5 lakhs a year. That means 99% of Indians are poor by the metric used for America. (or for Europe for that matter)

Of course all of us educated people know that the cost of living is different in different countries - but the constant bombardment of these metrics has a negative effect on Indians. A middle class income Indian earning Rs 7,500 pm a month (for a family of 4) is not going to think "Hey - the cost of living is different in America" he is going to say "heck I would love to go to America and be poor because even a poor person in America gets 4 times as much as I earn. If I live like a dog in America and send back 25% of what I earn, we will still have more"

This in fact is how we get the "long queues" outside the American consulate which people have repeatedly told me on BRF is an indicator of how useless India is. All those "boat people" (or container people) who pay touts lakhs to get to Europe or Australia are all fed on this poverty in your country and wealth in the west propaganda. At some stage we need to assert the fact that Indians who earn in India what the poorest do in America and Europe are wealthy people who lead much happier and fulfilling lives than the bottom 20-30% in the USA or Europe.

Indians are willing to be dogs in foreign nations because we convince ourselves that we are dogs and are fed with statistics to prove that we are dogs. Those of us who think we understand need to to dissect this information and see exactly what is being disseminated and why. Are Indians aware of how the bottom 20% live in the USA or Europe? Does the Indian in India who hates his condition live in the bottom 20% of India or in the top 80%? Does he think he is magically going to rise above the bottom 20% in Europe or America by going there? Does he know that even wealth and happy Indians fall below the bottom 20% of US and Europe in income? Does he understand that he has a better chance in India?

How can the Indian know all this when even educated Indians constantly talk about their wealth and their happiness compared with Indians in India after they go abroad.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Post by Arjun »

Western technique of appropriating all the innovation to come out of India and attributing to the Greeks, is soo past its sell-by date !

Who were the world's first vegetarians?
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Post by Arjun »

The poster-child of religious exclusivism pontificates about 'inclusiveness' to Hindus !!! Can't surpass Christian clergy when it comes to sheer unadulterated gall :rotfl:

Vatican's message for Deepavali 2014
MESSAGE FOR THE FEAST OF DEEPAVALI , ‎2014 ‎

Vatican City



Dear Hindu Friends,‎

‎1.‎ The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue joyfully greets all of you ‎on the festive occasion of Deepavali, celebrated on 23 October this year. May the ‎Transcendent Light illumine your hearts, homes and communities, and may all ‎your celebrations deepen the sense of belonging to one another in your families ‎and neighbourhoods, and so further harmony and happiness, peace and ‎prosperity.‎

‎2.‎ We wish to reflect with you this year on the theme "Fostering together a ‎culture of 'inclusion'". In the face of increasing discrimination, violence and ‎exclusion throughout the world, 'nurturing a culture of inclusion' can be rightly ‎seen as one of the most genuine aspirations of people everywhere.‎

‎3.‎ It is true that globalization has opened many new frontiers and provided ‎fresh opportunities to develop, among other things, better educational and ‎healthcare facilities. It has ushered in a greater awareness of democracy and ‎social justice in the world, and our planet has truly become a 'global village' due ‎in large part to modern means of communication and transportation. It can also ‎be said, however, that globalization has not achieved its primary objective of ‎integrating local peoples into the global community. Rather, globalization has ‎contributed significantly to many peoples losing their sociocultural, economic ‎and political identities.‎

‎4.‎ The negative effects of globalization have also had an impact on religious ‎communities throughout the world since they are intimately related to ‎surrounding cultures. In fact, globalization has contributed to the fragmentation ‎of society and to an increase in relativism and syncretism in religious matters, as ‎well as bringing about a privatization of religion. Religious fundamentalism and ‎ethnic, tribal and sectarian violence in different parts of the world today are ‎largely manifestations of the discontent, uncertainty and insecurity among ‎peoples, particularly the poor and marginalized who have been excluded from the ‎benefits of globalization.‎

‎5.‎ The negative consequences of globalization, such as widespread ‎materialism and consumerism, moreover, have made people more self-absorbed, ‎power-hungry and indifferent to the rights, needs and sufferings of others. This, ‎in the words of Pope Francis, has led to a "'globalization of indifference' which ‎makes us slowly inured to the suffering of others and closed in on ourselves" ‎‎(Message for the World Day of Peace, 2014). Such indifference gives rise to a ‎‎'culture of exclusion' (cf. Pope Francis, Address to the Apostolic Movement of ‎the Blind and the Little Mission for the Deaf and Mute, 29 March 2014) in which ‎the poor, marginalized and vulnerable are denied their rights, as well as the ‎opportunities and resources that are available to other members of society. They ‎are treated as insignificant, dispensable, burdensome, unnecessary, to be used ‎and even discarded like objects. In various ways, the exploitation of children and ‎women, the neglect of the elderly, sick, differently-abled, migrants and refugees, ‎and the persecution of minorities are sure indicators of this culture of exclusion.‎

‎6.‎ Nurturing a culture of inclusion thus becomes a common call and a shared ‎responsibility, which must be urgently undertaken. It is a project involving those ‎who care for the health and survival of the human family here on earth and which ‎needs to be carried out amidst, and in spite of, the forces that perpetuate the ‎culture of exclusion.‎

‎7.‎ As people grounded in our own respective religious traditions and with ‎shared convictions, may we, Hindus and Christians, join together with followers ‎of other religions and with people of good will to foster a culture of inclusion for ‎a just and peaceful society.‎



We wish you all a Happy Deepavali!‎

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran

President
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 »

Arjun wrote:Western technique of appropriating all the innovation to come out of India and attributing to the Greeks, is soo past its sell-by date !

Who were the world's first vegetarians?
I am currently reading (very slowly), Plato's "Republic".

In the book, Socrates, in conversation with another starts to define the beginnings of a state or society, and says:
-first of all what will be their way of life - will they not produce corn, and wine and clothes and shoes and build houses for themselves?"
Later Socrates goes on to describe more of the diet that the humans who form this state
..they will feed on Barley meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves
Then he says - about garnishing the food:
of course they must have a relish - salt and olives and cheese, and they wil boil roots and herbs, and for a dessert we shall give them figs and peas and beans and they will roast myrtle berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation
What surprised me was the total lack of mention of meat.

On the other hand here is some info about 17th century Britain. One needed to be wealthy to eat meat
http://www.localhistories.org/povhist.html
At the end of the 17th century a writer estimated that half the population could afford to eat meat every day. In other words about 50% of the people were wealthy or at least reasonably well off. Below them about 30% of the population could afford to eat meat between 2 and 6 times a week. They were 'poor'. The bottom 20% could only eat meat once a week. They were very poor. At least part of the time they had to rely on poor relief.
Another link says:
A Swedish tourist is known to have said in 1748 that the English were good at cooking big pieces of meat, but did not seem to have talent in any other arenas of cooking .
...
Due to urbanization, large quantities of meat had to be transported from the farms to the cities [12]. Since the trip was by no means short or easy, �the quality of meat was bound to be coarse and inferior.� [13] A doctor who was the author of the 1788 book �The Honours of the Table� warned that the odor of meat was such that one should keep it away from his/her nose while eating it!
...
Not very many English people in the eighteenth century had fruit at all; only a very select, minuscule group of wealthy people had access to fruit
...
One of the greatest luxuries in dining is to be able to command plenty of good vegetables well served up. But this is a luxury vainly hoped for at set parties. The vegetables are made to figure in a very secondary way, except, indeed, whilst they are considered as great delicacies, which is generally before they are at their best -- excellent potatoes, smoking hot and accompanied by melted butter of the first quality would alone stamp merit on any dinner.�
-Thomas Walker
(Hunt, Eating and Drinking, An Anthology for Epicures, p. 134)
Meat every day, every meal is a new phenomenon - starting with mass animal farming in the 20th century. The meat lobby now in the US is as powerful as the gun lobby and we will only get information supported by paid reserachers and doctors that more meat should be eaten.
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 »

symontk wrote: Classical mistake. Please take the example of Kerala. Do a projection based on the population of Kerala based on the early 20th century population and you will get a population of 5 crores by 2011. If you take a projection from 1971, you will get a population of 4 crores. If you do a projection from 2001, you will get 3.5 crores. But what was the population of Kerala in 2011, 3.3 crores

You can save people being born when the survival rate is high among babies and elderly. That's a human tendency. Its natural

Adding to that no person in Kerala thinks of staying alone without marriage etc
More power to the mallus. Look at Bihar and UP as well. They are also India

The fact is that populations are increasing and food supply has had to be increased whether it is Kerala or Bihar. Populations are increasing because more people are surviving than dying, and malnutrition continues because the food supply cannot keep up with the increase in population. At what point will food supply be sufficient to remove all malnutrition? What are the projections in that regard?

Theoretically if populations keep on increasing forever, food supply will have to keep on increasing forever. So the only way of stopping this is to stop population growth. Why has that worked better in Kerala than Bihar or UP? Any idea?

Kerala is also the state with the highest number of divorces. Maybe wealth and individual freedom are linked. Poverty and bondage to family are linked. Freeing the individual from family helps reduce family responsibilities and family size, and makes individuals wealthier and more free to pursue their individual desires. That is what Western Universalism suggests is the way forward. I am not sure that it is. Ultimately human society depends on family and groups which cannot come by releasing the individual from family responsibility.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

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

Post by Arjun »

Interesting that vegetarianism is as high among Sikhs as this study claims - but it ties in with earlier studies on vegetarian percentage in Punjab: Indian Food Habits
Of Sikhs, only 0.7 % in rural areas and 2.2% in urban areas consume egg/fish/meat. They are the largest consumers of milk, some three times that of Muslims and four times that of Christians.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Post by vishvak »

"Vatican's message for Deepavali 2014"

Wasn't the same religious head talking about billion soul harvest BS. May be he can actually make himself useful by convincing fellow Europeans to return wealth stolen from all over the world.

===========================
Another facet of WU could be to not let Hindus organise under explicit religious movement for own protection. The recent American scheming over NaMo visit is one example.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14331
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

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

Post by Aditya_V »

habal wrote:Looking at a BBC presenter during news, I had an aha moment. There she was sitting cross-legged in a skirt and pretending to question another white guy over sports just after a clip on racism in USA somewhere Baton Rouge where whites were petitioning for seperate schools for white residents. The sports presenter was making some funny gestures during the while and indulging the BBC presenter in a anglo version of 'aur dekh mera kamal kudiye' kind of gimmicks. It was at that moment it dawned on me that Western Universalism was a western universe and a ecosystem created out of kicking the butts of non-whites, exploiting them, making fun of them, ridiculing them and generally making an ass of everyone else who did not resemble them. While the intent remained the same, the tactics and methods kept changing from time to time.

These countries in Africa had citizens who were slave-traded, kicked about, robbed of their wealth and put in places where they felt as strangers and treated worse than animals. The behaviour of anglo-saxons in India was well-documented.

Now these people or their children have created an entire ecosystem out of ridicule of non-whites. And our gripes with that ecosystem of arrogance betrayed often by casual racist expression and social demands to lump it and not 'whinge' about it. This is our entire gripe with 'Western Universalism' and we can't seem to be doing anything about it. And the sad thing is though this is well documented, and recognized there is nought we can do about it at present. Because there is an entire world of admirers of western narrative like the entire class of 'intellectuals' in ex-colonies, Islamic countries (like those so-called intellectuals in a neighbouring Pakistan) who look fawningly upon any western narrative with great indulgence.

Human Rights Index, Human Development Index, Happy Planet Index, Gender Development Index, Quality of Life Index are all indexes which post-Industrial European and anglo-saxon countries have aced and are cards that can be used against any number of non-white countries. Even a Japan can be castigated under 'Gender Equality Index' if they get too ambitious. It can be used to prevent these countries from claiming bigger roles in world community and keep the clique elite and as small as ever. So all of you keep working at 'bettering your indexes' while we make the rules. ehh.

These things (like the BBC presenter) should be left alone and ignored until this group can be taken head on.
Well one more aha moment, see how radical Islam is promoted used by them to make sure that the non whites are able to develop. Thats why take active steps to make sure radical Islam develops in all places whicht hey do not want to see developed.
habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6919
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

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

Post by habal »

Hardcore Islamists were always tools of the west, but what is curious is the outlook of the liberal Islamists.

Liberal Islamists (Is there such a thing, if not then it is only relative to the hardcore version) see west as a kind of Abrahamic horizon which they aspire to be at someday. What the west is today, they aspire to be at least at that level tomorrow or the day after.

See the claims .. "Unhone Saddam/Gaddafi ko lamba lita diya" .. which means they put Saddam/Gaddafi laid long horizontal.
So did they do wrong, No, not according to the liberal Islamist mind. You have to copy the west, Yes but if you mess with them then in the minds of these gentlemen the west will lay you horizontal. This is what their aspiration is.

They do not aspire for a world where everyone is equal. Where no one lays anybody long horizontal. Even the extent of their aspirations are what the west is doing today. Their ideal method of subverting west is to patao some 'gori' and make kids muslim and 'enjoy best of both worlds'. This is western universalism manifesting over a set of ex-colonials who have no grudge against their methods, just regret that they themselves were not the one's to do this to others.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

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

Post by Agnimitra »

"Men can be highly civilized only while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them." - George Orwell
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

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

Post by vishvak »

Another aspect of WU preaching is to fight wars in certain ways against their terrorist munnas and certain other ways against competing powers.
War against pakis: ensure survival of pakis, allow nuke blackmail and terrorism by pakis, sanctions against India.
War against China: cheap imports from America, limit nuke deterrence against China, no penalties against China for warmongering in WTO.
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 »

Let me stick to what I see are contradictions in the tenets of WU

The recommendations are
1. Children must not be made to work to earn a living - yes I wholeheartedly agree
2. Children must be educated - of course, this goes without saying

But, WU also says
3. men and women to have equal opportunity to work for a living - fine. This sounds OK at first glance.

But let me get back to children.

If children must have a happy childhood, they have a right to a stable family. A stable family means mother and father - i.e. an adult male and an adult female dedicated to looking after the child who will not work and will be educated.

Why do children not have the right to a stable family? You can give them a right to not work and say that "someone else" - parents/guardians/state will look after their education and safety. But why absolve parents of the responsibility to a child? How come parents, who are punished for hitting a child are not punished for the long term psychological abuse inflicted on a child by fighting, separating and coupling with someone else who does not have the duty or intention of protecting the child.

In WU "rights" are restricted to individual pleasure and self fulfilment. The child gets his right to education and right to play and not work - but the parents have the right to not maintain a stable family for their own selfish reasons. They are not trained, warned or punished for that as they would if they were identified as being visibly cruel to the child.

As for the adult man and woman - they are needed for the work force. Their health and independence is important so that they can be "productive workers". Devoting time to bringing up a child in a secure family environment is not considered "productive work". "Productive work" is a job that earns them money and probably and employer a huge profit. This is a greedy short term view that is already showing its ill effects in societies.

Devoting time to holding a stable family, making adjustments in personal needs for the child and one's spouse for the purpose of providing the child a stable environment is essential for society. Often one or other partner has to stay off work for varying periods of time for this purpose. This should not be considered "lost work time" Bringing up a child in a stable environment is a worthy and essential cause and a fundamental right for the child even if this right goes unrecognized in WU.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

It's not just about Muslims: Here's the real reason for RSS fear of Hindu-Muslim romance
By Ajaz Ashraf
Published on Oct 21, 2014
The current debate on love jihad focuses primarily on how the notion of patriarchy seeks to control a woman’s choices and her body. This is apart from noting how it harnesses inter-religious marriages to propagate Hindutva through a stoking of sentiments against Muslims.

These arguments are certainly valid, but they miss a key aspect of RSS’ campaign: its worldview in which it is the family — not the individual, whether male or female — is regarded as the basic unit of society.

You have to read the ‘philosophy’ of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch on its website to fathom the anxieties and fears the RSS has about individualism. An affiliate of the RSS, the SJM was formed on 22 November, 1991, just months after the Narasimha Rao government embarked on the path of economic liberalisation.

The SJM seeks to promote swadeshi in the economic realm, but it also intuitively understands that liberalisation fosters individual freedom, which could erode the cultural values the RSS cherishes.

Therefore, SJM categorically declares, "The lowest socio-cultural economic unit of society in the Swadeshi view is not the individual but the family." Further, the SJM says "it believes that the unbridled and unbalanced individualism of the West is destructive of community living."

The "Western notion of individual freedom” is destructive because it “fragments and compartmentalises family, economy, culture and social values.” This is why individualism is not acceptable to the SJM.

It says a person’s freedom is tempered by his or her integration into the family and community, and religion provides “support and linkage to community living.” Individualism, therefore, must be circumscribed. The method of restricting a person’s freedom is to subordinate him or her to the family.

Cultural anxiety aside, such subordination is also necessary because of economic reasons. You get a peek into the SJM’s thinking when it says, “This single institution (family) relieves the modern State of extraordinary welfare commitments like old age benefits and unemployment doles which work out to over half of the GDP in many Western countries, like USA and Germany.”

In other words, the SJM wants the family to take the responsibility, economically as much as emotionally, for the old and the indigent, the sick and the dying. So what then is the State there for?

"The State acts only to protect it (the family) from incursions." In protecting the family from unbridled individualism that can fragment it, the State also shields the community, which is defined in religious terms.

It is this worldview of the RSS which has spawned its narrative of love jihad. Inter-religious marriages destabilise the family, or the basic social unit, and, therefore, also the religious community. No doubt, patriarchy has a role in the campaign against love jihad, but this is enacted against the backdrop of the RSS’s opposition to what it calls “unbridled individualism”, a term it is loathe to describe.

Yet it isn’t difficult to imagine when the line of control is violated, or when the individual is seen to have thrown off the bridle. Indeed, the relationship between the individual and his or her family is not always harmonious. It often begins fraying as the child, reveling in his or her discovery of individualism, begins to disagree with his or her parents or elders on such issues as subjects to graduate in, the dress to wear, the length of hair to sport, the profession to pursue, et al.

But nothing challenges or undermines the imagined idyllic family life than the individual’s choice of whom to love and marry. It negates the tradition of family elders choosing a partner for the young. It shows him or her stubbornly refusing to subordinate his or her interests to that of the family, triggering anxiety among the elders about their own future. Might not the individual wing out of the family nest, leaving its members to fend for themselves in old age?

But individualism is tolerated as long as lovers belong to the same class-caste and religious background because it is seen as perpetuating the tradition dear to family elders. It is not considered destabilising; the individual hasn’t violated the bounds of class-caste and religion. It becomes more a case of tradition taming modernity so it remains within bounds, and therefore not deemed dangerous.

By contrast, inter-religious marriages become an expression of unbridled individualism, for it undermines not only the right of elders to choose for the young, but also what they value as tradition. Once the rein of tradition has been thrown off, it is impossible to tell what other experiments with modernity will the individual attempt.

This experiment with modernity triggers anxiety among elders because they fear the tradition and sentiments binding them and their children might get ignored repeatedly. The famed cohesiveness of the family structure is loosened, conveying dreadful future possibilities to elders in the absence of comprehensive welfare measures.

Inter-religious or even inter-caste marriages also complicate the relationship between the family and the community. It makes the line separating social groups fuzzy, as also their idea of identity, and threatens the principles around which community living is organised. All this further aggravates the family’s anxiety about its future. This is particularly true of areas where people don’t live their lives in metro-like anonymity.

It is important to note that while the ‘love jihad’ campaign is the specific expression of the RSS’s worldview, interfaith relationships threaten both sides of the equation. This fear of individualism is as much part of certain sections of the Muslim community and their organisations. Both communities seek to fetter individualism, deter the young from finding the flight path separate from that of the family.

The RSS’s narrative of love jihad is at odds with and aimed at neutralizing the pull of individualism unleashed by the last 25 years of liberalisation. It also highlights the faultline within the greater BJP-RSS worldview where the free market impulse wars against its cultural conservatism. Will Prime Minister Narendra Modi tell the RSS that economic liberalisation and individualism come together in a package deal? Will he point out the reason why love jihad overturns the philosophy of liberalisation? Oh, well…
A peaceful trying to argue against RSS and for Luv Jihad using Western Universalism tools, and doing equal-equal between RSS and unwashed abduls!
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:short term view that is already showing its ill effects .......

Devoting time to holding a stable family, making adjustments in personal needs for the child and one's spouse for the purpose of providing the child a stable environment is essential for society. Often one or other partner has to stay off work for varying periods of time for this purpose. This should not be considered "lost work time" Bringing up a child in a stable environment is a worthy and essential cause and a fundamental right for the child even if this right goes unrecognized in WU.
Nailed it... More flavor... WU speaks a lot about Women's rights etc, but when it comes to supporting her in having a professional life and a family it falls short. Because it views her as an individual, especially somehow equal to men. Let me clarify for the WUfied... Women are superior to men in several areas, just as men are superior to women in others... If we optimize the family unit... Ie provide working women - daycare, nanny, flexible work hours etc. etc. the overall productivity and diversity of innovation achieved will likely be superior... The choice needs to be for either both partners working or not... However, WU's prescriptions come far too late - monitory subsidies to have children, etc. and we end up with "Sheng Nu” - "Unwanted" women etc, further screwing up the population pyramid. It is quite sad to then see WUfied but recovering 40-50 yrs old singles running around in India seeking personal meaning and salvation, whereas it was with them and those around them in the first place.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Post by ShauryaT »

Pulikeshi wrote:
Shiv wrote:short term view that is already showing its ill effects .......

Devoting time to holding a stable family, making adjustments in personal needs for the child and one's spouse for the purpose of providing the child a stable environment is essential for society. Often one or other partner has to stay off work for varying periods of time for this purpose. This should not be considered "lost work time" Bringing up a child in a stable environment is a worthy and essential cause and a fundamental right for the child even if this right goes unrecognized in WU.
Nailed it... More flavor... WU speaks a lot about Women's rights etc, but when it comes to supporting her in having a professional life and a family it falls short. Because it views her as an individual, especially somehow equal to men. Let me clarify for the WUfied... Women are superior to men in several areas, just as men are superior to women in others... If we optimize the family unit... Ie provide working women - daycare, nanny, flexible work hours etc. etc. the overall productivity and diversity of innovation achieved will likely be superior... The choice needs to be for either both partners working or not... However, WU's prescriptions come far too late - monitory subsidies to have children, etc. and we end up with "Sheng Nu” - "Unwanted" women etc, further screwing up the population pyramid. It is quite sad to then see WUfied but recovering 40-50 yrs old singles running around in India seeking personal meaning and salvation, whereas it was with them and those around them in the first place.
At root is a break down in values, where acquisition of wealth, or rather the use and display of wealth is the only value system that counts, with no balance. Until, these objectives do not align back again to balance the purusharthas along with a restoration of balance in Ashramas and eventually a societal articulation of these values through Varna, things will remain skewed in favor of individualism.
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 things that I have noticed about information that comes out of the west is that it changed according to flavor of the season. It was the west that prided itself on science and a scientific way of dealing with things - but the tools of science are simply misapplied to get a cargo-cult version of science which is used to belt out stories and myths that suit the mood of the day.

So, over the decades I have observed how widely acknowledged differences between men and women - where both men and women would acknowledge and accept their differences and superiority in certain areas, asserting a version of female individuality versus a male one, are gradually being ironed out to make it seem like everyone is the same in all ways.


And useful information about the past simply disappears as new cooked up information fills info space. I recall that in teh 60, p.ornograpy was a mainly male thing. It's not as if women did not cave access to it - but men wanted pics;women were less likely to go for pics, but were more likely to absorb literature and stories of bonding with a bit of sex included. Nowadays it is being stated that all this is nonsense. P.orn was made by men for men. If it was made for women they would have enjoyed the same things as men and that omen react to male type p.orn the same way as men.

In fact this is not true. Women are different even if certain groups want to make believe that there are no differences.

Here is one paper from 2013
http://blog.clinicalcareconsultants.com ... t_eyes.pdf
According to data taken from Internet users who took part in the General Social Survey for the
year 2000, the following are predictors of online p.ornography use:

–
Men are 543% more likely to look at p.orn than females.
–
Those who are happily married are 61% less likely to look at p.orn.
–
Those who are politically more liberal are 19% more likely to look at p.orn.
–
Those who had ever committed adultery are 218% more likely to look at p.orn.
–
Those who had ever engaged in paid sex are 270% more likely to look at p.orn.
–
Those with teen children are 45% less likely to look at p.orn
According to the
Journal of Adolescent Health,
prolonged exposure to p.ornography leads to:
47
–
An exaggerated perception of sexual activity in society
–
Diminished trust between intimate couples
–
The abandonment of the hope of sexual monogamy
–
Belief that promiscuity is the natural state
–
Belief that abstinence and sexual inactivity are unhealthy
–
Cynicism about love or the need for affection between sexual partners
–
Belief that marriage is sexually confining
–
Lack of attraction to family and child-raising
Last edited by shiv on 22 Oct 2014 07:52, 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 »

What does western universalism do to protect Children from excessive exposure to p.ornography? Or is it being said that this is good for freedom, self expression and individuality of all people and children have a right to have full and free access to p.ornographic material?
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 »

In the context of marriages in the west
According to sociologist Jill Manning, the research indicates p.ornography consumption is
associated with the following six trends, among others:

1.Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce

2.Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction

3.Infidelity

4.Increased appetite for more graphic types of p.ornography and sexual activity

associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices

5.Devaluation of monogamy, marriage and child rearing

6.An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual
behavior
In 2002, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported the following as the most
salient factors present in divorce cases:
–
68% of the divorces involved one party meeting a new lover over the Internet.
–
56% involved one party having “an obsessive interest in p.ornographic websites.”
–
47% involved spending excessive time on the computer.
–
33% involved excessive time spent speaking in chat rooms.
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 »

It appears to me that business lobbies in the west have a greater influence than society or people on what happens.

There is a gun lobby, a beef lobby, a p.orn/sexual freedom lobby etc. These lobbies manage to lobby support for their own business interests over and above societal interests and people are fragmented and told "fuk society, look for your individual pleasure. You want sex, guns food" etc.

This, as suggested by those 4 videos linked earlier make a mocakery of democracy. It is ironing that this is the democracy that is being touted as "best for everyone"

In fact one could argue that Ram Rajya or rule of Mahomet were better for people under those regimes than this democracy.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote:What does western universalism do to protect Children from excessive exposure to p.ornography? Or is it being said that this is good for freedom, self expression and individuality of all people and children have a right to have full and free access to p.ornographic material?
Shiv ji: WU at least in the US has not breached that wall yet.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/por ... -obscenity
Another type of ***** that receives no First Amendment protection is child *****.
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

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

Post by symontk »

I am not against the findings presented or the observation made out of it. But some of the words used are not correct. I am trying to change thme. Also trying to present an alternate view point with the same facts
shiv wrote:Let me stick to what I see are contradictions in the tenets of WU

The recommendations are
1. Children must not be made to work to earn a living - yes I wholeheartedly agree
2. Children must be educated - of course, this goes without saying

But, WU also says
3. men and women to have equal opportunity to work for a living - fine. This sounds OK at first glance.

But let me get back to children.

If children must have a happy childhood, they have a right to a stable family. A stable family means mother and father - i.e. an adult male and an adult female dedicated to looking after the child who will not work and will be educated.

Why do children not have the right to a stable family? You can give them a right to not work and say that "someone else" - parents/guardians/state will look after their education and safety. But why absolve parents of the responsibility to a child? How come parents, who are punished for hitting a child are not punished for the long term psychological abuse inflicted on a child by fighting, separating and coupling with someone else who does not have the duty or intention of protecting the child.

In WU "rights" are restricted to individual pleasure and self fulfilment. The child gets his right to education and right to play and not work - but the parents have the right to not maintain a stable family for their own selfish reasons. They are not trained, warned or punished for that as they would if they were identified as being visibly cruel to the child.
West do have the mechanisms to get people trained for family life. But in a free soceity things are different
shiv wrote: As for the adult man and woman - they are needed for the work force. Their health and independence is important so that they can be "productive workers". Devoting time to bringing up a child in a secure family environment is not considered "productive work". "Productive work" is a job that earns them money and probably and employer a huge profit. This is a greedy short term view that is already showing its ill effects in societies.
It is in fact plain wrong. There is lot more freedom for a child to pursue his / her carreer in West than in India. About family work, I will comment later about my observations
shiv wrote: Devoting time to holding a stable family, making adjustments in personal needs for the child and one's spouse for the purpose of providing the child a stable environment is essential for society. Often one or other partner has to stay off work for varying periods of time for this purpose. This should not be considered "lost work time" Bringing up a child in a stable environment is a worthy and essential cause and a fundamental right for the child even if this right goes unrecognized in WU.
There are rights and duties but there are few more important things than that
shiv wrote:According to sociologist Jill Manning, the research indicates p.ornography consumption is
associated with the following six trends, among others:

1.Increased marital distress, and risk of separation and divorce

2.Decreased marital intimacy and sexual satisfaction

3.Infidelity

4.Increased appetite for more graphic types of p.ornography and sexual activity associated with abusive, illegal or unsafe practices

5.Devaluation of monogamy, marriage and child rearing

6.An increasing number of people struggling with compulsive and addictive sexual behavior
The right question to ask is if any partner is indulging in the above behaviours would the other person continue the relationship. I will comment on the reasons why there are freedoms for doing so too
shiv wrote:In 2002, the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers reported the following as the most
salient factors present in divorce cases:
–
68% of the divorces involved one party meeting a new lover over the Internet.
–
56% involved one party having “an obsessive interest in p.ornographic websites.”
–
47% involved spending excessive time on the computer.
–
33% involved excessive time spent speaking in chat rooms.
The right question to ask is if any partner is indulging in the above behaviours would the other person continue the relationship. I will comment on the reasons why there are freedoms for doing so too
shiv wrote:It appears to me that business lobbies in the west have a greater influence than society or people on what happens.

There is a gun lobby, a beef lobby, a p.orn/sexual freedom lobby etc. These lobbies manage to lobby support for their own business interests over and above societal interests and people are fragmented and told "fuk society, look for your individual pleasure. You want sex, guns food" etc.

This, as suggested by those 4 videos linked earlier make a mocakery of democracy. It is ironing that this is the democracy that is being touted as "best for everyone"

In fact one could argue that Ram Rajya or rule of Mahomet were better for people under those regimes than this democracy.
I would not say that there are other better models, may be they are competing models. I am not sure about the virtues of rule of Mahomet.

Ok let me say about the Western model which is anyway the thread

One of the main suggestion is that western models allow criminal elements in the soceity. If you look at the statistics, the crime rate would be high than most of the countries. But neither the citizens of those countries nor the citizens of other countries have any complaints against them. It is always expected that the justice department would be impartial and the criminals are punished. Added to this the same western countries mock other countries with descriptions like "rape capitla of world". But if the statistics are to be believed, that is not so and the western countries have more rape cases per capita than other countries. So whats happening? Why is that so?

There can be reasons like there is little documentation or cases taken up in the third world countries. And so statistics are not showing the right picture. But this is only a part of the answer. Actual answer to be found is why there is more rape in Western societies?

Shiv earlier talked about the freedom. That could be the reason or actually the reason. There is lot more individual freedom for all the individuals and it prompts criminal elements of soceity and also people with suppressed criminal feelings to express fully using those freedoms. The Justice department of the western soceities are capable of handling all these cases and criminals get punished. If you look at the life of a criminal after he is released from prision, it is like they cannot apply for any decent jobs or vocations. If you are attempting to make it big in western soceities you need to be an individual where there are no issues like this

The third world countries also wonder why US people are worried about President's Clinton infidelity when they themselves are like that. But the infidelity is one way to pull a person down in US so that others take their place

So if freedoms are there and the individuals miuse it, then it disqualifies them to make it big. So its a way to weed out bad people out of the system. The visitors to these countries first see these individuals and they are impressed. No wonder people like to stay in a Western society. But always forget that these individuals are combed ones where there are no issues against them. After seeing this they clamour that this is not so in their home country and probably the reason is the govt at the centre state etc. But few people introspect to see how things are in their home country

In the third world countries, most of them ruled by western countries and others in the western influence, sees the western models and tries to emulate them. But they dont emulate them in sprirt but only in creating some infrastructure. But then they dont get the same experience and results. So then blame goes to the western model not to the way it is implemented

If you take the case of India and do a survey of senior government officers how many will come clean? If there is a sustained way of cleaning the system there will be a way for good people to succeed in India. Its again our inertia to do the right thing

But in doing so Western societies pay a high cost for family well being. Most of the individuals cannot even decide whether they need family and would look for arrangements outside it. Some do not marry and they dont have any children too. There are several children under single parent who finds it is difficult to sustain their life.

It is the byproduct of success. If you want success then this is the way. If you think that success comes from suppressing individual freedoms, may be that is not correct

My two paise. I am sure I didnt made sense. But just put my view point which is derived from brief exchanges from several individuals from both India and western world
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Post by ShauryaT »

symontk wrote: It is the byproduct of success. If you want success then this is the way. If you think that success comes from suppressing individual freedoms, may be that is not correct
Ofcourse, Success as defined by the tenets and values of WU only!

These definitions will not include the entire body of duties and obligations that we as individuals owe to our families, society and the environment. Our obligations to complete our sanskaras, ashramas and eventually lead to a "life" of Moksha has no place. In such definitions of success the simple value of Indriya-Nigraha or sense control has no place and hence Gandhi's life lessons have no place, in this definition of success.

The idea of "success" is relative to those committed to the idea of cultural relativism, for whom each culture defines its own goals and ethics, which cannot be evaluated against the goals and ethics of another culture.

Definitions are important and WU definitions of success is limited to economic development and material well-being, social-economic equity and political democracy. That is the context of WU.

SD approaches success differently, does not mean, it negates the above or is opposed but the focus and end goals are different. A life lived in pursuit of the purusharthas as per chatur dharma, varna and ashramas is a "successful" life lived!
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

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

Post by symontk »

ShauryaT wrote:
symontk wrote: It is the byproduct of success. If you want success then this is the way. If you think that success comes from suppressing individual freedoms, may be that is not correct
Ofcourse, Success as defined by the tenets and values of WU only!

These definitions will not include the entire body of duties and obligations that we as individuals owe to our families, society and the environment. Our obligations to complete our sanskaras, ashramas and eventually lead to a "life" of Moksha has no place. In such definitions of success the simple value of Indriya-Nigraha or sense control has no place and hence Gandhi's life lessons have no place, in this definition of success.

The idea of "success" is relative to those committed to the idea of cultural relativism, for whom each culture defines its own goals and ethics, which cannot be evaluated against the goals and ethics of another culture.

Definitions are important and WU definitions of success is limited to economic development and material well-being, social-economic equity and political democracy. That is the context of WU.

SD approaches success differently, does not mean, it negates the above or is opposed but the focus and end goals are different. A life lived in pursuit of the purusharthas as per chatur dharma, varna and ashramas is a "successful" life lived!
No not at all. I haven't discounted the importance of controlling your senses. But are you really sure that most of the times where the crimes don't occur or reported, is it only senses controlled or things not reported?

Most of the times, its a sacrifice done by some part of society or individual for the sake of family or society. When you have individual freedom, things wont be viewed in that perspective and each individual would try to raise the bar every time. But in the process, they do sacrifice their happiness, family etc. But its a individual's decision and not a decision imposed or prescribed by any process. So any failure or success of that sacrifice is accepted by that individual, where as it will be resented by if something is imposed upon or even prescribed
member_22733
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3788
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by member_22733 »

Long time ago I had this sci-fi idea:
Imagine a machine that materializes whatever you want.
You want your morning coffee and dal-roti .... the machine churns a little and materializes coffee and dal-roti, there it is right infront of you.
You want to get a brand new car .....CHURN!CHURN!CHURN and there is a new ferrari right there.
You want casual sex ... ZAP! just close your eyes and there is the most beautiful woman/handsome man you ever imagined doing what you want her/him to do.
You want it to take care of your kid ... ZAP! that is done as well.

All you need is to supply it with energy (solar panels) and raw materials (which can be done using robots).
I am now starting to realize that WU and its ecosystem is using science and technology (especially automation), to do precisely the above. You have coffee machines, pre-processed food, day care for 3 month old infants, "sex"ting and "hookup" apps on your smartphone, 0 down low interest car loans etc etc.

In India all of the above needs humans to do it and not machines or some factory far off. Humans are not designed to function this way. It has its benefits (like this forum for example), but the cost of such a huge "machine" is your precious time and your interpersonal relationships. Most people in the west work long hours. The WU machines sucks your life out of you and gives you "everything you ever wanted" in return.

I will expand more on this when time permits.
Last edited by member_22733 on 22 Oct 2014 21:21, 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 »

symontk wrote:It is the byproduct of success. If you want success then this is the way. If you think that success comes from suppressing individual freedoms, may be that is not correct
Cause and effect confusion in your post. The societal degradation is the effect of success. The success is not the result of societal change. This is the nth time I am saying this. Too many people making the mistake you are making.

The success started over 100 years ago. The degradation started after the 1960s.

Failure of western society is the byproduct of economic and technological success.

That is something we must avoid.
Last edited by shiv on 22 Oct 2014 21:41, edited 2 times in total.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

symontk wrote:If you take the case of India and do a survey of senior government officers how many will come clean? If there is a sustained way of cleaning the system there will be a way for good people to succeed in India. Its again our inertia to do the right thing

But in doing so Western societies pay a high cost for family well being. Most of the individuals cannot even decide whether they need family and would look for arrangements outside it. Some do not marry and they dont have any children too. There are several children under single parent who finds it is difficult to sustain their life.

It is the byproduct of success. If you want success then this is the way. If you think that success comes from suppressing individual freedoms, may be that is not correct
There is an inclination to mix things up, and to argue against the pros of one issue by presenting cons of a totally different issue.

Corruption, Injustice, Lack of Cleanliness, Poverty, Technological Backwardness etc. are some of arguments made against an allegedly Bharatiya model, even though these are more an expression of the degeneration of the Bharatiya Model in India rather than a result of it.

Similarly Rule of Law, Technological Advancement, Wealth in Western World are being attributed to "Freedoms of the Individual" in the West, without much of a rationale behind it.

All these are outcomes of wealth, gotten one way or another. If one comes to think about it, Saudi and other Gulf societies too have "Rule of Law", Peace, Infrastructure, etc. and some would say there is a lot of freedom for men, albeit with a very few qualifiers.

Just because West has much which can be bought simply due to wealth - social peace, cleanliness, law-abiding society, etc. does not in itself mean that it has anything to do with "Freedom of the Individual", the official cornerstone of Western Universalism.

The Bharatiya Model treats the family as the smallest unit of society, rather than the individual, but it only restricts the freedom of the individual only as far as it does not contradict his responsibilities to the family - which includes its security, its survival, its feeding, and the general well-being of every member of it.

The Bharatiya Model does not go ahead and say, the individual should not proceed on the path of merit and success, or not go and look for a career that best suits his aptitude and nature.

Why are the good things in the West ascribed to "Freedom of the Individual", while the bad things in India are ascribed to the "Patriarchical Conservative Hindu Society" (which may itself not be the right way to describe the Bharatiya Model)?
symontk
BRFite
Posts: 920
Joined: 01 Nov 2001 12:31
Location: Bangalore

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

Post by symontk »

RajeshA wrote:
Corruption, Injustice, Lack of Cleanliness, Poverty, Technological Backwardness etc. are some of arguments made against an allegedly Bharatiya model, even though these are more an expression of the degeneration of the Bharatiya Model in India rather than a result of it.
These are there for all societies but in varying factors, the variance is the important one to be noticed
RajeshA wrote: Similarly Rule of Law, Technological Advancement, Wealth in Western World are being attributed to "Freedoms of the Individual" in the West, without much of a rationale behind it.
There should be a rational behind these
RajeshA wrote: All these are outcomes of wealth, gotten one way or another. If one comes to think about it, Saudi and other Gulf societies too have "Rule of Law", Peace, Infrastructure, etc. and some would say there is a lot of freedom for men, albeit with a very few qualifiers.

Just because West has much which can be bought simply due to wealth - social peace, cleanliness, law-abiding society, etc. does not in itself mean that it has anything to do with "Freedom of the Individual", the official cornerstone of Western Universalism.
Wealth cannot make individualism, like we dont have that in Gulf societies, it has to be something else
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

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

Post by RajeshA »

symontk wrote:Wealth cannot make individualism, like we dont have that in Gulf societies, it has to be something else
Question is whether Individualism is necessary for the "great things in life" which one associates with Western society! I would argue it is not!

But "Individualism" is certainly a culprit as far as social decay in the West is concerned, as has been explained in various posts in this thread. So if "Individualism" brings no benefit for society, what is left of the Western Universalist Model worth aping, which one cannot imagine in the Bharatiya Model?
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 »

shiv wrote:
symontk wrote:It is the byproduct of success. If you want success then this is the way. If you think that success comes from suppressing individual freedoms, may be that is not correct
Cause and effect confusion in your post. The societal degradation is the effect of success. The success is not the result of societal change. This is the nth time I am saying this. Too many people making the mistake you are making.

The success started over 100 years ago. The degradation started after the 1960s.

Failure of western society is the byproduct of economic and technological success.

That is something we must avoid.
Here is a quote from a post I made earlier
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1705602
Too many Indians, a few even on this thread, see Western Universalism as the root cause, the causative agent, for the high technological and economic achievements of the west. As if it was democracy, freedom and human rights that led to all that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Western universalism is an affectation and a prescription to wannabes that started AFTER the west gained technological and economic ascendancy. There is a cause and effect confusion here among perfectly intelligent people, EXACTLY akin to a cargo cult, where people believe that if you display the behaviours recommended by Western Universalism, that behaviour will somehow result in your advancement and take you to the tech and money peaks that the west has reached.
symontk is making the same mistake, mixing up cause and effect.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

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

Post by ShauryaT »

symontk wrote: Most of the times, its a sacrifice done by some part of society or individual for the sake of family or society. When you have individual freedom, things wont be viewed in that perspective and each individual would try to raise the bar every time. But in the process, they do sacrifice their happiness, family etc. But its a individual's decision and not a decision imposed or prescribed by any process. So any failure or success of that sacrifice is accepted by that individual, where as it will be resented by if something is imposed upon or even prescribed
I am coming to the realization that the word sacrifice itself is valid, only if we accept the paramountcy of Individualism. i.e: the rights and needs and wants of the individual are paramount and above all else, within confines of the laws of a westernized state.

From an SD prism, our works in favor of our family, society and environment are not sacrifices but obligations and duties. Meaning, are they to be not performed amounts to an ethical violation of our ways and systems.

ALL social systems have prescriptions and boundaries. Just that in WU, the state is the only one that is allowed to prescribe, though the rule of law as applied to individuals, which ofcourse would follow some democracy rituals. Prescription is vested in authorities, to whom one is accountable. WU has reduced these authorities to a single entity, i.e the state.
Harpal Bector
BRFite
Posts: 226
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

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

Post by Harpal Bector »

abhischekcc wrote: Is this strong character the reason she chooses to live in UKstan?


Her only achievement is that she survived a bullet wound and gave a lot of speeches after that.
Well Sir, when you compare her to the number of people who live in UK and still feel scared to speak out against the Taliban or worse still - defend their actions - I think Malala stands out.

Unlike many on this forum, people don't see a Pakistani when they see Malala - they see a teenage girl who stood up to one of the darkest criminal forces in human history.

She is a role model for many people - not just Pakistanis - it is this universal appeal that in my opinion makes her uniquely deserving of a Nobel Prize.

The same cannot be said of Kailash.
Post Reply