This bit jumped out as extreme - is this usual, or a rarity? :
"Each morning, before she is allowed to eat, the daughter-in-law must wash the feet of her husband’s parents and then drink the water she has used to wash them."
I have never heard of this, despite having experienced rural life both among upper and lower classes. I expect that Ellen Barry made it up, or - more likely - was conned by one of her Indian assistants/translators and swallowed it up.
Having said that, the article is correct overall that life of rural Indian women is hard and governed by patriarchal rules - they are expected to be house bound etc. The description of menstrual restrictions is also accurate.
Overall the article did ring of truth and was optimistic - surprisingly for Ellen Barry and the New York Times.
Not partirarchal, rather, it's about near-deification of elders, which includes the mother-in-law. Paternalistic attitudes pervade village life, and to some extent, the lives of most Indians. For example, among quite a few girls/women I know, menstrual restrictions are enforced by the grandmother, their grandfathers are dead, and the parents relax the restrictions a bit when the grandmother is out of town.
This really might sound like an apologetic defence but what happens in one house in a country of more than a billion people is not "Tradition" or a "Custom". The world is bizarre. How do I know? I live here and I have experience of a LOT of rural families. This is not a custom. But yeah when it suits the narrative a single anecdote can be interpolated to say just about anything.
I've seen NYT do this with articles about China (I live in China), writing about something one-off by someone in one village, as if it is a tradition practiced by many.
Well it's not just that. Just look at hollywood movies. Every portrayal of any foreign soil is just pure prejudices/ignorance/racism/american stereotype. They seem incapable of understanding any different culture at all. I find it more pitiful (betrays their intellect) than offensive though.
>They seem incapable of understanding any different culture at all. I find it more pitiful (betrays their intellect) than offensive though.
Yes, all of Hollywood(and those evil Americans in general) is composed of stupid racists that simply can't understand other cultures, how pitiful...
Perhaps you shouldn't take the portrayal of a culture in every context as intending to be a completely accurate depiction; It is not as if American culture when depicted portrays the US accurately.
Usually I'm on the 'giving' side of that dynamic (unintentionally), but I was watching the final episode of The Blacklist the other day and in it some American bad guy is thrown out of a plan over The Netherlands. The house they show him landing in is a throwback to 200 years ago, complete with a woman with covered head and wooden beams in the walls. It's around 3:14 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISzOGRgIWI . It's hilarious that someone on the production team would actually think this is anywhere near realistic; or maybe it's just hilarious that they thought most American viewers would think a Dutch house would look like that.
(maybe the guy just accidentally landed in an outdoor museum...)
A good rule of thumb when consuming media has always been: Look at who owns said company, what their political stance is, take the reports with a grain of salt and then double check with an opposing viewpoint to get the full story.
Media always comes with a bias, good journalists try to reduce it to a limited amount as good as they can, but they often fail due to subjectivity or their employers want them to report in a certain way. The NYT isn't even trying anymore, that's why people turn away in disgust, if I want retarded opinion pieces instead of news I'd read social media BS.
Sure, we also go and poop out in the fields every day. NyT like most occidental publications intend to shock and awe their customers under a guise of enlightenment. Much as does the colonial crowd here. This dance has been going on for two hundred years you see.
Most Indians do in fact go out and poop in the fields every day. Most Indian commenters here are from the urban middle class and have literally never spent a minute thinking about the vast and miserable rural lower classes around them, and get incredibly offended when a westerner does in fact notice and write about them.
I can second that. I have lived in Mumbai my whole life and a large portion of the population is slum dwelling and you can find them lining up the railway tracks or to poop in the morning with a bucket of water in hand. And this is in the city, extending into the suburbs and outside. The truth is that the country is a huge study in contrast. Slums exist right next to five star hotels and luxury residences. It is true that the number of people rising to the middle class has gone up considerably in the last decade. But what goes by unnoticed is the number of people growing up and living in poverty here has grown much faster, a side effect of the enormous population.
What you are saying is true to a large extent. What is also true is that a significant percentage of westerners continuously look for the next big shocking thing out of India to "enrich" their experience of life. That is also quite exploitative of the unfortunate people who are the subject of all this drama. There is this thing called "poverty tourism" in Europe. One of my acquaintances in Western Europe didn't think that it was worth visiting India cause he has seen it all in China. At that point I had no idea of what to make of that.
2. Water is fairly scarce in certain regions. Considering how unhygienic such toilets end up in such far off places, I probably would too.
It's not like they can't afford it (most folk carry a smartphone these days, while earning <$200 a month).
3. Rural India is generally way more hygienic than Urban India; apparently has a more even sex-ratio too.
4. I've spent time in villages from my childhood. I know why toilets were kept separated in the backyard, and why they've now moved closer home.
Please don't give me the old "white saviour" line. Chomsky and his starlings may use this line with gusto, but the vacuity of it is readily apparent for those not afraid of not being fashionable.
I also understand how the stupid policies of the state driven by such sentences of native courtiers, led to widespread agricultural failures, ridiculous price fluctuations and rural depopulation.
Do you care ? No.
5. I've also seen homeless Americans poop on the streets.
6. I'm not a fan of the whole post-colonial affair of "white guilt" milking. If you do indeed care, please tell me something that's not religious. Your experience is not divine.
I should have qualified "most" as "most of rural", sorry. Of course rural India is 70% of the population.
2, & 4, it is indeed true that people are choosing to poop in the fields out of choice and it "feels" more hygienic to people. But it is a misguided choice - likely a major cause of disease and childhood stunting - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna....
btw, I am an urban middle class Indian too. Not white by any stretch of the imagination. And where I did I say the white man is the saviour? I just said that the plight of rural Indians is completely ignored by those who complain loudly about western media views of India.
In fact I give full credit to the current government for raising awareness about toilets and trying to fix the issue.
I'm from the urban middle class but my parents grew up as miserable rural lower class. They still go out and poop in the fields at his native village. My grandfather died before my father had turned 20 and he had 3 younger siblings to take care of.
Until a couple of years ago, I used to believe the liberal claptrap about the 'vast and miserable' lower classes despite the counter example of my father's life or for that matter the other urban middle class folks around me who came from similar backgrounds.
But then I thought about them some more and came to the conclusion that their criminality and lack of effort to better their lot in life is written in their genes. The quotas will only do so much to improve their lives.
I think what bothers me the most is "never spend a minute thinking about the vast and misserable rural lower class around them,".
Yes--I'll get hammered over this, but whenever I see those pictures of huge beautiful skyscrapers overlooking absolute poverty below them; I wonder why the upper/middle class isn't sickened by the depravity, and demand change. I don't know how they can sit in their fancy condos, while overlooking people dying in the streets.
And yes--I am very dissapointed in our American middle/upper class who look at homeless/poverty stricken areas in the United States as something that could be prevented if only they "applied themselves", or "If only they got their diploma, or didn't do drugs.". I have seen people step over homeless in New York forever. I never liked the NY attitude. I now see it in San Francisco, and I'm bothered by the attitude. I'm not saying they should take the person in, but complaining about them is just something I didn't want to see here.
I know people in America have become desensitized to homelessness, and poverty, but most of still care, and are very bothered by it. We still have a lot of people who want change, and will hopefully never become complacent about it.
I hope we never become so desensitized, we don't spend a minute not thinking about it.
Being an American is helping out those in need, and not just being o.k. with it. Some people don't understand that about this country.
Some of the foreign push back is not racism; we just don't want to become your country.
(I won't be back to defend this post. And I know some Americans don't give a dam about anyone besides themselfs, or their family, but this county used to be great. We are sadly sliding.)
You knew the NYT had gone full retard when they started reporting the Ellen Pao fiasco as a pro "Women in Tech" topic.
It has been all down hill from there. Pao was literally hired to take the great they knew their actions would bring, then leave. Then they removed her as CEO, but let her stay on at Reddit, and everyone on reddit cheered as if it were a victory, but none of the changes were reversed.
This bit is almost certainly made up somewhere in the information chain of this article.
I grew up in an Indian village, not so well off. So were most of my relatives in the neighboring villages. I never witnessed or heard of such a thing.
In some places (covering around 5-10% population of India) there is a tradition of washing the feet of your elders on some ceremonial occasions but that water is never consumed. It mostly goes to some sacred tree or as an offering to some local deity, meaning that it is thrown around the deity in symbolism.
Some segements which are more pious do in fact, consume a small amount of water - but I've not heard of it happening as a daily ritual - only during ceremonies.
There is this ancient Indian story about Krishna washing the feet of his devotee and then drinking the water. So this thing is not alien to the Indian culture. But I'll not be surprised if this still happens in some rural parts of India.
Sure, the concept of washing feet is a form of reverence in Indian culture. But it was ages ago. To generalize and imply that it is common today is just stereotyping.
I don't think this is true. I have heard that women eat on the same plate the husband uses. Many wait for their husbands to return home no matter how late and don't eat until the husband comes home. Those things are like the epitome of sexism I guess.
Washing the feet of an elder or teacher is often a part of ceremonies and is symbolic of respect and is often done during important ceremonies (like marriage).
I've experienced some villages and I'm not aware of any village custom in which this happens daily but it wouldn't not surprise me if it did exist in some places though I suspect it would be rare.
The sentence seems to portray it as something that a girl is forced to do against a wishes - I suspect in reality its just a custom and they don't think twice about it.
In reality, it's not really drinking it - it's more of splashing a little of it in the mouth and usually on the head - it does seem weird talking about it now, but the custom does exist and it isn't even limited to villages - though again, I've only experienced this in special ceremonies - not as part of daily life.
As I am an Indian and as someone who actually is interested about customs and traditions, it is usual for a daughter-in-law to wash the feet of the husband's parents BUT NO in terms of drinking it. But please READ the following to have a complete understanding so there is no misunderstandings.
Washing somebodies feet is a mark of respect in the Indian tradition, followed which a couple of DROPS is just sprinkled on the head as a sign of humility. Its is common is very traditional families to wash the feet of the elders as a mark of respect daily. Ofcourse, the feet is cleaned prior to this. No one washes dirty feet.
Among Hindus, we do bath the deity (its another misconception to call it an idol) with water and the water is only sprinkled on people as the water is considered holy. After which the deity is bathed in honey, milk, fruit juice as offerings, which is actually consumed by people as prasad (a devotional offering made to God). Sometimes, if there is nothing special, even water is offered. The point I am trying to stress is that the water for bathing is different from that of offering. The deity is kept in a clean places.
That being said, people ignorant of the customs do commit mistakes. There are many misconceptions among Indians on various matters especially in rural areas. But drinking the water that she used to wash is not heard of.
I also can't believe that this is true. Even if you were someone that ignores the dignity of your wife (which I doubt Indians do) she still would suffer from all kinds of illnesses if she had to do this, so it doesn't make any sense. Maybe some crazy guy somewhere does that but that can't be the norm anywhere.
Absolute racist/hinduphobic garbage from NYT and that is how it is so often.
> "Each morning, before she is allowed to eat, the daughter-in-law must wash the feet of her husband’s parents and then drink the water she has used to wash them."
Grew up in a very conservative rural area in India. Have not heard any of this sort of crap.
I doubt if it ever happened. Washing feet is a ritual that is considered a great honor and mostly reserved for super special occasions. For a brahmin during certain types of Puja, Groom during marriage, Bride when entering the new home etc.
The problem with a lot of culture articles on developing countries from global media is the singular focus on one aspect over decades. Every journalist somehow end up gravitating to the same thing which skews perspectives.
Its like only writing about deep south US by the global media for decades on end so there is no coverage of NYC, LA, SFO and all the other bits that make up the whole US.
So no exposure to Hollywood, to technology, to financial systems, to modern cities, imagine the kind of distorted perspective readers will form of USA. While the deep south is US the other bits are also US and you need both or you end with an deeply unbalanced and distorted perspective.
All cultures and traditions originating from thousands of years ago, be it islam, christianity or hinduism are going to be regressive in infinite ways. It takes balanced development and wealth to get people into the modern world both in mind and body so they have the perspective and freedom to accept and reject parts.
According the to the UN development indices 70% of Indian's are poor, that's a mind boggling 700-800 million people (that's more than the combined population of the US and Europe) just trying to survive and like all people who find themselves in these cirumstances they will cling desperately to their traditions.
Even the most committed system will have a multi-generational problem pulling these many people out of poverty, most developing countries, infact most countries do not have the luxury of a committed leadership over these time frames.
Different context, but relevant quote by Christopher Hitchens:
"The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it's called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you'll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn't matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has."
I greatly respect Christopher Hitchens but this statement is provably wrong.
There was no control over reproduction by women before the birth control pill reached the market in 1960. Therefore it would follow that every society before 1960 was poor, which isn't true.
Also why do we experience today rising poverty while further expanding womens rights at the same time? Shouldn't we all get richer?
My conclusion is that these two issues are unrelated. Societies get rich by either creating value (that's the one that I like) or capturing value by the use of force, period.
> There was no control over reproduction by women before the birth control pill reached the market in 1960. Therefore it would follow that every society before 1960 was poor, which isn't true.
No, it wouldn't. The argument here is that birth control is a factor that correlates to rising women's empowerment, which in turn can lead to a reduction in poverty. The reverse (societies without birth control are poor) does not follow.
> why do we experience today rising poverty while further expanding womens rights at the same time?
because women's rights are a factor, but not the only one. The argument is that, in the context of developing countries, it makes sense to empower women. It is not that any increase in women's rights automatically leads to more wealth.
> The argument here is that birth control is a factor that correlates to rising women's empowerment
It logically follows that women are empowered if you give them the right to control their reproduction but that's not the argument here.
The argument is whether women's empowerment leads to prosperity in a society and nothing else.
You yourself state this:
> The reverse (societies without birth control are poor) does not follow.
This is what I wrote before myself. What is missing is that someone shows that empowering women is a factor (and if so to what degree) that will lead to prosperity.
Just saying it isn't sufficient. I get that people have their values and goals and in this case I agree that women should not be second class citizens in any regard.
But I'm sceptical of statements where people connect arbitrary things to something everyone wants (prosperity) just to promote their values and causes. That's usually what politicians do and I'm not one of them.
By the way it is also not helpful to tell poor countries do X (where X is accept our values in some regard) and you'll be prosperous and rich, when we cannot prove that indeed they'll be more prosperous if they do this.
That'll create resentment or they will stop taking us serious. In fact I'm frequently reading news and comment sections in many languages and I can tell you that this has already happened. They ridicule the West for our stupidity and our values that we try to foist on them.
Usually I won't flat out say something is racist, because it is about points of view and such; however, these are clearly identifiable biases that stem from British colonialism, and either no longer exist, or never did in any relevant time frame.
Yes, India has a weird culture, by western standards (or several, really). Yes, they have insane amounts of poverty that make even our poorest look positively middle class. Yes, India has cultural roots in sexist practices.
However, this? This ain't journalism, and this is insulting to the memory of what the New York Times once was. This is fear mongering, this is a shock an awe campaign. This has little roots in reality.
Could you cite some lines in this article that you consider racist?
Clearly, the women in this article experienced prejudice. Maybe that's the norm in India, maybe it isn't, but describing their own oppressive experiences is not even remotely racist against Indians. The article doesn't attempt to make any general claims about India.
But as far as I know, a large part of India does still have very sexist cultural standards when it comes to girls and women. And even if they didn't, such claims (which, again, this article didn't even make) would just be a misinterpretation of the country's culture, not necessarily racism by any means.
So if I say that the Saudi government and their practices which stem from their culture are bad because they kill gays, kill non believers and enslave women then I'm being racist?
Well then I guess I don't have to care if I'm being called a racists because you've made it into a good thing.
However, the failure of the Saudi state has come from within, when the House of Saud was infected by the expansion of Wahhabism in the Islamic world, where two previous states lead by the House of Saud failed, and a third, today's Saudi Arabia (formed in 1932) is also heading towards ruin, but doing so entirely under their own power and leadership.
The failure of the Indian state is due to British rule for over 100 years in which India's own culture was heavily distorted through the lens of colonialism efforts; in addition, Pakistan leaving and declaring its own Islamic government has also not helped India heal from this. The current state of India is due to outside influences.
Bad things happen due to the extreme poverty in India all the time, but the very specific things said in the article are all distortions of Indian culture that are no longer practiced, even in the most backwards towns.
What the NYT did is no different than if today's Saudi Arabia had stopped it's anti-humanitarian efforts and chose to transition into a modern government instead, and you claimed they still killed gays, non-muslims, and whoever else for non-crimes.
India obviously has only taken the first steps in becoming a modern nation, but what the NYT did is not helping India at all.
In short, the NYT is going to have to prove it. Photos, videos, whatever. This is no different than any other editorial hearsay otherwise. If they had actually found human rights violations in the scale and severity implied in the article, the NYT would be running this as front page news, and world governments would be pressuring India to fix this.
Look I agree that some of that stuff in this article is complete and utter nonsense.
For example where it is explained that women wash mens feet and then have to drink the water. Whoever believes this must be either stupid or ignorant.
And that's exactly how I would comment on this. The person who wrote this article is clearly either not well enough educated to have any business writing articles about this for the NY Times or that person is simply ignorant.
But I very much doubt that there is some racism involved here. People sometimes write hurtful or stupid things and I did so myself occasionally but when I did it's not because I hate some specific culture but because of incomplete information or knowledge. (though I'm not a journalist or a politician, so it's not that bad if I get things wrong occasionally)
You'd be surprised at the sheer amount of idiotic and degrading customs in Indian culture. Parts of it are beautiful and the culture as a whole is steeped in tradition, but the majority of the social customs are absolutely despicable.
Like other people have said, in a billion people you can find anything you want to, but the described custom is extremly unusual. I am an Indian, raised in semi-rural area, and I have never heard of this happening. NYT is just pushing its narrative.
And yet it's a common occurrence to read in the news of women who were assaulted and not infrequently killed for e.g. wrinkling their husband's clothes. Of course I don't purport that everyone in a country of over a billion people behaves this way but it's far more common than it should be.
This can't be said without noting that in many parts of India (at least today) these types of customs are unheard of. It's a far more diverse country than I think you give it credit for.
That being said, these practices should certainly be condemned everywhere.
No I not surprised anymore. But this? This seems weird even to my how deadened senses. Enough to pass the activation threshold to ask other people if they've seen this.
It's odhisa, so it's not necessarily going to be hard to find someone from there who has experience with it.
Every religion has got traditions and customs, all of them based on myths that have been followed for ages and we call them by different names - traditions & customs are a couple of them.
We, humans, have a unique ability to create myths and imagine so that there is an ever-growing sect of people that keeps on growing. The more the people following a particular belief(myth), the larger territory it acquires on the planet. The larger territory is a representation of the power of the leader of the sect.
This bit jumped out as extreme - is this usual, or a rarity? :
"Each morning, before she is allowed to eat, the daughter-in-law must wash the feet of her husband’s parents and then drink the water she has used to wash them."