I mentioned advertisements commonly found in India and I'd like to dedicate a whole post to them. First of all, nowadays advertisements have severy degraded and there are very few if any, which are actually witty or have a line worth remembering. But apart from that, advertisements reflect the superiority of the English language embedded in us as I mentioned in the last post.
I don't exactly remember which product but I'm sure all of you have seen the ad which focuses on a boy who comes to the village to see a girl, and as long as she talks in hindi/punjabi he thinks of her as a silly village girl. But as soon as she starts talking with an accent, he decides she is a very educated, smart girl. Education is necassarily associated with English. There is perhaps less fault in the advertisement, or in any person who thinks so and more fault in the system. Learning English has become such an essential part of getting a good job and earning money, that no one will ever consider doing something in Hindi or for that matter, any other language.
Apart from that, ads, as I mentioned on fair and lovely, fair and handsome are of course, widely prevalant. Then ads on cement and such focus on making India a carbon copy of the U. S. or Singapore or such countries. Make something original!
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Still racist?
Britishers left our country a long time ago but I can't help thinking that there is still an element of white superiority embedded in each one of us. The fact is made painfully clear with each new advertisement. Fair and lovely, fair and handsome, the fact that talking English makes you superior. Bad pronounciation, in English is always looked upon as a sign of inferiority. Waiters and people at call centers are painfully instructed to talk in good English.
The undying hypocrisy of the middle class in India is reflected in this. They are very nationalistic, but very few still would rate someone who talks fluent English and someone who talks fluent Hindi on the same level. In fact, recently, by not going to foreign countries to get jobs, people seem to be doing a favour to their country. They proudly announce something which should be looked upon as natural! They seem to be contributing to the economic development of our country by working here but blindly ignore the economic disparities present! People who criticize the country are labelled as unpatriotic. The country should be blindly supported. I personally think people who criticize the country manage to do more for it than those who succumb to blind patriotism. There seems to be a feeling that patriotism and pride for nationality will overcome the problems posed by the Indian system of government.
But back to my topic on white superiority. There is a subtle change in attitude in third world racism and first world racism. Third world racism, wherever present, seems to concentrate on an attitude of hate, and almost seems like hate against superiors. First world racism meanwhile concentartes more on an attitude of contempt, contempt towards inferiors. I think this difference in attitude makes the whole difference. Whites coming to our country are treated with supreme politeness and stared upon curiously as wonders. Asian people visiting white countries are merely ignored.
The fact that I'm writing this article itself in English goes on to show that I'm more comfortable in expressing my views in English rather than Hindi. I know that, and I'm ashamed of it. I try my best to improve. Atleast, bad English is not something by which I judge perosn.
The undying hypocrisy of the middle class in India is reflected in this. They are very nationalistic, but very few still would rate someone who talks fluent English and someone who talks fluent Hindi on the same level. In fact, recently, by not going to foreign countries to get jobs, people seem to be doing a favour to their country. They proudly announce something which should be looked upon as natural! They seem to be contributing to the economic development of our country by working here but blindly ignore the economic disparities present! People who criticize the country are labelled as unpatriotic. The country should be blindly supported. I personally think people who criticize the country manage to do more for it than those who succumb to blind patriotism. There seems to be a feeling that patriotism and pride for nationality will overcome the problems posed by the Indian system of government.
But back to my topic on white superiority. There is a subtle change in attitude in third world racism and first world racism. Third world racism, wherever present, seems to concentrate on an attitude of hate, and almost seems like hate against superiors. First world racism meanwhile concentartes more on an attitude of contempt, contempt towards inferiors. I think this difference in attitude makes the whole difference. Whites coming to our country are treated with supreme politeness and stared upon curiously as wonders. Asian people visiting white countries are merely ignored.
The fact that I'm writing this article itself in English goes on to show that I'm more comfortable in expressing my views in English rather than Hindi. I know that, and I'm ashamed of it. I try my best to improve. Atleast, bad English is not something by which I judge perosn.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Bishan Singh Bedi
I was recently reading some comments from B. S. Bedi and to say the truth, they astound me. He criticizes Murali, Shoaib and other bowlers of chucking. He vehemently says, "When a bowler is chucking, he's referred to panels and the home cricket board. Why not do the same for a wide or no-ball, then?" His one remark sums it all up, "Cheating is a subcontinental trait." Chucking, I would have given some thought, but cheating? Now, why doesn't he comment on the underarm ball that was bowled? Why doesn't he comment on when all fielders were placed at the boundary to stop a four? What about when the English started Bodyline bowling? No, those don't count as cheating? He freely calls Murali and Shoaib chucker (and has gone on to the limit of calling Murali a javelin and a shotput thrower, both). He also says he doesn't have anything personal against Murali. Why exactly does he then keep on targetting him? No doubt he doesn't have anything personal against Murali, but why not make general statements against chucking instead of targetting Murali? Of course, the thing that amuses me most is that he never mentions Brett Lee or for that matter any other Australian or Britisher, or South African. Why? They'll take things seriously? Mr. Bedi, if you want to live up to your comments, show some guts and criticize these as well. In the Wisden Award Ceremony, he made a complete fool of himself by asking John Buchanan, if he had made the team or the team had made him? What exactly is he trying to do? Get attention? The day, B.S. Bedi dare target a Britisher, Australian, or a South African, I'll recognize his guts. But somehow I don't think he will. Till then, he just appears to be a exasperated attention seeker to me.
Perhaps, I'm at fault. I'm taking him too seriously. After all, Sri Lankan team manager Chandra Shaffter summed up general feeling when he said: "Not very many people take Bedi seriously, I think he thrives on controversies and that's his style." So, thats what it has come to.
Perhaps, I'm at fault. I'm taking him too seriously. After all, Sri Lankan team manager Chandra Shaffter summed up general feeling when he said: "Not very many people take Bedi seriously, I think he thrives on controversies and that's his style." So, thats what it has come to.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Atheism
I am no expert concerning God. I can't even truely say that I have read the Quran and the Bible though I plan to do so as soon as I can. However, this blog contains about as much as I know about God and why I am an atheist.
Imagine you are a man in the times when men lived in the wilds and lived by hunting. You wake up, you hunt, you roam. You see the stars, you see the sun, you see the moon. How do you explain them? No one moves them, they seem to move on their own. You naturally assume that these stars, and suns are big and powerful, much bigger and much more powerful than you, and over the years, you start to say that they are all controlled by one entity, ie: God. However, man developed, and with each year, he understood more. He understood how the sun moves, how the moon moves, what the stars are. Yet, the belief held by his ancestors, instead of developing with man, remained the same. And it grew and took the form of religion. A religion which forced him to stop enjoying, to give up pleasures, to fight for God, to fear him and to serve him. This website aptly describes the difference between science and faith. http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png
First of all, what you are specially depends on your upbringing. If you are brought up in a deeply religious environment, you are sure to believe in God. As a child, you accept what is told to you and after growing up, you find it hard to change your views. When I became big enough to comprehend some basic science and logic, I became agnostic. Then, after viewing arguments for and against God, I decided on atheism.
First of all, I present arguments for God. And I find very few of them to be even slightly logical.
1) My holy book says that God exists. God wrote the holy book hence it must be true. Hence, God exists. http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php shows how foolish this logic is.
Anyone can understand that this argument uses circular logic and this argument is not even worth refuting.
2) Everything requires a cause. Hence, if you go back you must come upon a first cause. This cause has to be God.
This argument is again logically incorrect. The argument assumes that everything requires a cause and then says that God doesn't require a cause. People argue that God is uncaused and is infinite. If God can be infinite, why couldn't mass-energy have always existed. People argue about the problems in infinity but as far as I know, they hardly affect the argument that mass energy could have always existed.
3) Look around you. The universe is so complex. It requires a creator. God is the creator. Hence God exists.
Again, this argument is incorrect. If everything which is complex requires a creator, then God, being the most complex of all must also require a creator who must require a creator and so on.
4) It is impossible that we have just come by a series of chance events.
Evolution is not about chance. Evolution basically means random mutations and natural selection. It is not a series of chance events.
These arguments are based on my personal experience and the rest are not even worth mentioning.
Other people argue that God is beyond logic, beyond time. That all present laws do not apply to God. Honestly, why does someone need God when he hasn't shown any proof of his existence, takes care that the universe can be explained without him, and is basically of no use at all.
A few last points
Finally, I want to make a few last points.
Now, most religions say that we should fear the almighty God. People also say that you should show your devotion to God, love him etc. Now, how can you love someone you fear? How can you show true devotion towards someone when you fear punishment and know that you will be rewarded? And isn't God a little too human-like, who gives punishments to people who defy him and rewards those who serve him?
Second, the ever popular stone paradox. If God is omnipotent, he can either create a stone he can't lift or he can't create a stone he can't lift. Either way, he is not omnipotent.
Third, people say that if people have their belief, they should be left alone and allowed to be followed any religion they desire. However, religion causes a great amount of loss in life and property. A great amount of money is wasted in religion. Religion also effects the rational thinking of people. If someone believes in Superman, he/she has serious problems.
Imagine you are a man in the times when men lived in the wilds and lived by hunting. You wake up, you hunt, you roam. You see the stars, you see the sun, you see the moon. How do you explain them? No one moves them, they seem to move on their own. You naturally assume that these stars, and suns are big and powerful, much bigger and much more powerful than you, and over the years, you start to say that they are all controlled by one entity, ie: God. However, man developed, and with each year, he understood more. He understood how the sun moves, how the moon moves, what the stars are. Yet, the belief held by his ancestors, instead of developing with man, remained the same. And it grew and took the form of religion. A religion which forced him to stop enjoying, to give up pleasures, to fight for God, to fear him and to serve him. This website aptly describes the difference between science and faith. http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png
First of all, what you are specially depends on your upbringing. If you are brought up in a deeply religious environment, you are sure to believe in God. As a child, you accept what is told to you and after growing up, you find it hard to change your views. When I became big enough to comprehend some basic science and logic, I became agnostic. Then, after viewing arguments for and against God, I decided on atheism.
First of all, I present arguments for God. And I find very few of them to be even slightly logical.
1) My holy book says that God exists. God wrote the holy book hence it must be true. Hence, God exists. http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php shows how foolish this logic is.
Anyone can understand that this argument uses circular logic and this argument is not even worth refuting.
2) Everything requires a cause. Hence, if you go back you must come upon a first cause. This cause has to be God.
This argument is again logically incorrect. The argument assumes that everything requires a cause and then says that God doesn't require a cause. People argue that God is uncaused and is infinite. If God can be infinite, why couldn't mass-energy have always existed. People argue about the problems in infinity but as far as I know, they hardly affect the argument that mass energy could have always existed.
3) Look around you. The universe is so complex. It requires a creator. God is the creator. Hence God exists.
Again, this argument is incorrect. If everything which is complex requires a creator, then God, being the most complex of all must also require a creator who must require a creator and so on.
4) It is impossible that we have just come by a series of chance events.
Evolution is not about chance. Evolution basically means random mutations and natural selection. It is not a series of chance events.
These arguments are based on my personal experience and the rest are not even worth mentioning.
Other people argue that God is beyond logic, beyond time. That all present laws do not apply to God. Honestly, why does someone need God when he hasn't shown any proof of his existence, takes care that the universe can be explained without him, and is basically of no use at all.
A few last points
Finally, I want to make a few last points.
Now, most religions say that we should fear the almighty God. People also say that you should show your devotion to God, love him etc. Now, how can you love someone you fear? How can you show true devotion towards someone when you fear punishment and know that you will be rewarded? And isn't God a little too human-like, who gives punishments to people who defy him and rewards those who serve him?
Second, the ever popular stone paradox. If God is omnipotent, he can either create a stone he can't lift or he can't create a stone he can't lift. Either way, he is not omnipotent.
Third, people say that if people have their belief, they should be left alone and allowed to be followed any religion they desire. However, religion causes a great amount of loss in life and property. A great amount of money is wasted in religion. Religion also effects the rational thinking of people. If someone believes in Superman, he/she has serious problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)