So it's New Year's again...And with that, comes New Year's Eve expectations...I, for one, have never had a perfect New Year (while I have had close-to-perfect birthdays) except for the time in New Zealand when I was actually climbing a glacier at 3am on 1st Jan 2004 (That was Legendary!) In retrospect, after 20 NYE, if I have had one legendary one, I really shouldn't be complaining, should I?
Yes, I have plans tonight, to go to multiple parties, wearing a gorgeous dress that prevents me from breathing and heels that hate feet and to countdown while at the soppy equivalent of TimesSquare in Singapore. You can see that I don't have a lot of expectations but I guess my sister is excited to do something that is different so for her, I can suffer through the night, when I'd rather just go out to dinner and watch the fireworks (as long as I'm not in my house in front of the telly at midnight, I'm alright).
Every year, I’m impressed by people’s faith behind their resolutions, those hardy perennials that crop up on a regular basis: lose weight, start exercising, take up a new hobby. Regardless of the resolution, the faith remains in hope: we can all be better people tomorrow. Of course, anyone can say that this is not supported by evidence since they are repeated so often, we could hardly be making good on our promises, can we? Montaigne once said, “Is it not stupidity to let myself be fooled so many times by one guide?”
I’m not sure I agree because as cynical and sceptical as I am, I don’t underestimate the value of hope. I try to think of myself as glass-half-full and I usually am, but it’s not easy. Don’t let those pessimists let you think that being an optimist is the easy side cuuz it ain’t. Think about it, to have to keep believing in other people (who sometimes let you down), to have faith in your ability to stand by your resolutions (even though history suggests otherwise), is not an easy task. I disagree with the great philosopher (with all due respect) because resolutions represent a distinct and oddly inspiring sub-category of error: ‘wrongness as optimism’.
This doesn't slumber quietly all year, waiting to make an appearance in the final week of the year as we begin to reminisce and take notes on what we achieved this year. On the contrary, it is with us all the time, such as when my friend says he’s smoking his last cigarette. Why I lug 5 books about philosophy on a 2 week holiday, none of which is even opened. It is why I went to sleep last night, saying I’ll wake up early this morning, go to the gym and continue working on college applications (In reality: I had breakfast, rearranged the living room with my mother – counts as gymming, right? – and browsed the newspaper.) It applies to everyone. Politicians, once elected, who had good faith in their campaign, break their promises, because they, like the rest of us, overestimate their ability to make good on their hopes and dreams. It explains why ardent sports fans continue to support the hopeless underdog teams.
As easy as it is to mock our species for falling for this trick time and again, the truth is we are wise to be this particular kind of wrong. In most aspects of life, climate science for example, we do not want blind faith to outweigh the importance of facts and the evidence. But, in the case of murkier terrain such as our sense of self, a small sense of delusion serves us well by preventing us from falling into existential despair; The classic Waiting for Godot-complex, but never finding out the truth, nor believing in your ability to achieve and create change in your life. In fact, a lack of faith that our lives will get better in the future is a classic warning sign of depression.
The second reason is that sometimes, wrongness as optimism, wonderfully transforms into rightness. Human beings can never become something without pretending to be it first; so, in other words, resolutions are successful acts of the imaginations, not just the failure of will. That is not to say that you will lose 20 pounds, stop eating chocolate or spend more time with your children in 2012 just by resolving to do so. However, you will be doomed to failure if you never even dreamed of those resolutions in the first place.
Just as our other forms of wrongness as optimism propel out of bed after a wasted day watching all seasons of Dexter, our annual resolutions propel us into the new year, hopeful all over again that we will be better people in the days to come. So here’s to that, and to 2012 – the year that I shall finally figure out what I want to do in life, attain my goal dress size and ride every roller-coaster in the world (and hopefully, not die, but that’s for another post!)
I wish I were that confident. That would be half the battle, right?
HO HO HO! Merry Christmas to all :) Whether or not you celebrate Christmas in any way, you can't end the year without acknowledging its existence...Not just a religious holiday (although it is for many Christians), for others, it's just a time of being with friends and family and enjoying some well-deserved time off of work! So hope you all enjoy the holiday season with copious amounts of food and drink, great company and make some beautiful memories.
Now on to some interesting facts (this site is just a great way to procrastinate...or find interesting things to blog about):
Before you get on that, check this out for a great little prank Xmas present (great for international buddies): http://www.sendacallfromsanta.com/
Christmas was originally a pagan festival dating around 4th century in Germany. It was then known as Yule, which sounds so much better (Coincidentally, the ball in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was called the Yule Ball and was held during the Christmas period.)
It has since been absorbed into Christianity to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, but is also celebrated by people from many faiths.
Today, Christmas is celebrated by a lot of the world, but not all of it.
Coca Cola invented Santa Claus (citation needed).
Okay okay, they didn't invent him, but there was a rumour that they invented the image of the red suit, you know, for marketing.
Christmas is now a capitalist holiday that is all about greed and money. It's still the most wonderful time of the year in spirit and abstract concept (like so many other things in the world).
Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year :)
History of Christmas
"Christmas is the most magical time of the year, more magical even than four bank holidays glued together and multiplied by Easter!" - Charlie Brooker, UK TV Comedian
Yule has been celebrated for a long time, but the first time it was noted down by anyone was around the year 730AD. It was obviously a winter festival celebrated by Pagans from Germany, and consisted of great feasts, yuletide songs and happiness all around. The traditions of Yule haven't changed much since being converted to Christmas, apart from the inclusion of Jesus Christ.
Today, we follow the same traditions (nearly) as originally carried out during Yule. We eat ridiculously vast meals, sing songs that fill the heart with happiness and drink ourselves into an early depression in preparation for the New Year that's looming on the horizon.
Santa
Santa Claus goes by many names around the world, such as:
·Saint Nicholas
·Kris Kringle
·Father Christmas
·Pere Noel
·Baba Chaghaloo
·Santa Klaus
·Julemanden
·Weihnachtsmann
·And far too many more..
Santa is mainly known for delivering presents over the world to all the boys and girls. Of course, there are lot of skeptical people that say he doesn't exist, but there are factors that they haven't taken into account, like:
Time Zone differences
The fact that not everyone celebrates Christmas (So only believers get presents? Because they've done the shopping...how convenient!)
He has a reliable airline
We can see from these facts that the chance of Santa getting presents to all of his believers...is still pretty slim. But not completely impossible (for any believers out there, I'm trying to appear unbiased).
The real point of the Santa Claus story is to bring happiness to people at Christmas time. The idea is stronger than the embodiment, as shown in the film "Miracle on 34th Street", both the original and the remake, but more so in the remake. The end states that if the people of America can believe in God without physical evidence, and believe in him enough to print his name on their currency, then surely the people can believe in Santa as well.
Where is my seat? These budget cuts really suck...
Clarification: I’m not disputing or endorsing the existence of God. That is a personal belief and something that can’t be proven either way you stand. However, I can say that religion is a sociological phenomenon, a man-made concept. Thus, it is therefore, fallible, because humans are fallible creatures.
Religions are extremely diverse, have different interpretations of God (& Goddesses), have different opinions as to what people should wear and eat, how many wives they can have, what rituals they should follow. As they each take the view that they are the ones correct and that they vary dramatically in various respects, it is obvious why throughout the course of history, religion has burdened mankind with a great deal of conflicts and divisiveness. Instead of going into the differences between religions; let me point out a common recurrence: Throughout history and in most of the orthodox manifestations of religion, women are given 2nd class status (not being able to make independent choices for their body and future, not able to get the same education etc.), being hostile towards homosexuality and a severe opposition towards scientific progress. (AC Grayling, author of The Good Book and Ideas that Matter) First point is that religion usually endorses a patriarchal heterosexual version of society, to maintain control of the community and to continue the spread of their religion via children (which homosexuals cannot physically have); progress for progress’s sake must be stopped since the truth has been revealed a long time ago and relinquishing the hold of religious authorities would cause them to lose economic and territorial power.
Then there are those people who believe that without religion, there would be no morality. Of course, that is not true. Loving your neighbours, responsibility, concern for others and being a useful member of community: these are all shared by all people, regardless of religion, race or geographical location. About 16% of the world’s population (1.12 billion people) consider themselves atheists (Of course, this is extremely hard to judge since the term is interpreted differently and some people call themselves agnostics and to be honest, it gets quite confusing but suffice it to say, that these are the people who may have an individual belief system which is not part of any community or its rituals). It is incredibly narrow-minded and hopeless to believe that without the fear of authority or punishment, people will behave in a manner that is not conducive to a communal living. Where is our trust in humanity and our inherent sense of right and wrong? Can’t ethics simply be taught without the shadow of religion clouding our judgement? If you look at the Greek philosophers, all of them preached ethics and morality rather than religion and since no God told them what was right or wrong, it was simply reason and human experience.
Interesting point in the debate: Does believing in one religion make you an atheist in every other? Therefore, if we are to say that there are roughly about 20 major religions in the world and you consider yourself to be part of one religious community, you are 5% Christian (for example) and 95% atheist.
The current estimation is that 0.1% of people belonging to a religion sect are extremists (although I’m not sure how this is estimated, seems like a far-fetched statistic but for the purposes of the argument…) which is about 5 million people. But then you can argue that the rest, the moderately religious, are peaceable and usually approach a ‘live-and-let-live’ policy.
This is the part I’m not entirely convinced about: AC Grayling says that the moderately religious are prone to cherry-picking and they choose the best aspects of the religion they follow and the more awkward or embarrassing bits they leave to one side. He also argues that extremists are the only honest bunch of the lot because they commit themselves whole-heartedly to the entire religion and moderates are simply hypocrites since they follow only what is convenient. He then continues to say that, “If that is real religion, honest religion, then the world is very much better off without it. And if the world is better off without the true and honest form of religion, why not put the hypocrites along with them too.”
This doesn’t sit well with me, my interpretation of extremists is that they have misread, misinterpreted and abused their religious texts and are brainwashed to believe that they are following the word of God, when they are actually following the word of a few charming, authoritative enemies of humanity. However, even if what I’m saying is true, is there any way we can eradicate all extremist thoughts for eternity, realistically speaking? In that case, is it better to live in a world without religion but with ethics and morality instead?
To really drive this point home, “If religion made people behave better (and morally), then markers of social dysfunction such as drug addiction, ignorance, violent crime or teenage pregnancy would be lower in highly religious communities; in fact, the opposite is true.” (Matthew Chapman, Co-Founder of Science Debate - An organization seeking to get politicians to debate science policy issues). Austin Dacey, author of The Secular Conscience, says that “90% of Americans are religious but we have by far, the largest prison population on Earth, drug addiction is widespread, gun violence is grotesque, our education system produces kids whose maths and science skills are far lower than any in secular countries while our rate of teen pregnancy is far higher. And in a country so rich and Christian, it’s amazing how many people live in abject poverty. Religion is irrational, morally confusing and divisive…Making no reference to God, scientists have, among other things, rid us of the plague, smallpox and polio, dramatically reduced infant mortality, doubled the average length of a person’s life and is coming to understand how the brain works, including its capacity for empathy and moral decision-making.” All this progess, all this beautiful knowledge, all this alleviation of human suffering has been achieved in only a hundred years, while religion has had its chance for thousands of years to prove its supernatural effectiveness.
Again to clarify, I'm disputing the religious construct of society, not individual faith and believers. Institutions that support and propagate religion such as churches and synagogues seems to have an ulterior motive besides a common prayer area. If religion were to become an individualised ideal, where God existed only has an energy force to drive the world, subject to entropy in the universe, not as an authority figure who tells you what is right or wrong (We have parental figures for that!); I do agree that life and universe is a miracle, both a scientific and spiritual one but why does it cloud judgement of persons and prohibit progress. Why can’t humanity function without being told what to do? And if you want an understanding of the world’s nature and its laws, look towards science for answers. I’ll be the first to admit that science doesn’t have all the answers but it is aware of that fact and together with its conclusions, presents its limitations (which are gradually being eliminated as technology progresses). Why do we have to know everything at once anyway? Knowledge is a journey and should remain that way.
Sources: I watched the debate posted below, read up on each of the participants in the debate, read a few articles and the rest is my personal opinion.
I read the following article on a facebook page and am in complete agreement with everything Protiti says so I had to post it. I relate to it as an Indian, a feminist and a humanist.
What is SlutWalk about?SlutWalk is a movement that seeks to fight against Victim Blaming in cases of Sexual Abuse. The movement wants to discourage the practise of believing that the victim of a sex crime was “asking for it” with his/her clothing, lifestyle, interactions or history.
Why was the word “Slut” used?The word “slut” came in as a sarcastic response to a comment made by a Toronto police officer. On Jan 24th, 2011, Constable Michael Sanguinetti was speaking on crime prevention at a York University safety forum. He said “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”. The statement sparked considerable outrage because of its judgemental nature, and co-founders Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis decided to use the word “slut” in their response.
Author: Protiti Roy
Yesterday evening, while standing at the newspaper stand of my college, going through reports about the detention, I struck up conversation with a professor about Indian clothing. This professor, who had been a District and Sessions Judge before he joined Law School, had the following to say:
“What is Indian clothing? If you go to Kerala, people wear comparatively less clothing. It is not that sparse now, but in earlier days both men and women wore very few items of clothing. On the other hand, in Rajasthan, people wear a lot more clothes to beat the heat. In earlier days we did not have the practice of wearing too many clothes in India. Clothing varies from place to place, depending on various conditions such as climate and convenience. You may change your dress many times in one day for the sake of convenience, depending on what you are doing. Now that you have come to college, you are wearing jeans. When you go to play a sport, you will wear something else. If you go to the temple you will wear something else. It is all about what is comfortable and convenient.
Now in different parts of the country, depending on what people do, different styles of clothing are convenient. If by looking at a person’s dress, someone’s mind can get so agitated, or someone can get so frustrated, that he or she feels compelled to commit a crime, that person requires reformation.”
I want to further elaborate on both his points. For everyone who has told us that SlutWalk is against Indian culture, what precisely do you mean? Is advocating victim’s rights against Indian culture? No. All our epics talk about upholding the rights of those who have suffered. That is what Ram did when Ravan abducted Sita, that is what Krishna did when Kamsa was on a killing spree in Mathura, that is what Narasimha did when Prahlad was being tortured in numerous innovative ways. (I refer to these incidents not in their capacity as religious texts but in their capacity as literature written many thousand years ago in the Indian subcontinent.)
For those of you who are stuck at the name and cannot force yourselves to move beyond and see the larger picture, I ask you, what is wrong with the name? There have been comments on this page that say “wearing small clothes is not Indian culture”. I clarify once again that we are NOT asking people to wear small clothes. We are telling them to wear whatever they want – jeans and sweatshirt, sari, salwar kameez, lehenga, langa davni, shorts and tshirt, summer dresses, long gowns, skirts whether long or mini, whatever they want. And if you think that those who opt for smaller clothes are going against “Indian culture”, please tell me which civilization was Mohini from? Her clothes were so small and so transparent, that it caused Lord Shiva to ejaculate just by looking at her (I am not making this up. Please go read the Bhagavata Purana.) But did he try to touch her? Did he force himself on his object of desire? No. He asks her to come to him, and when she says no, he accepts it.
Going back to the point of clothes, there are more than enough instances of in our epics and mythological texts of women walking around with very little clothing. Read Kalidasa’s Kumarasambhavam. Read Jayadeva’s Geetagovindam. They all speak of barely clothed human bodies in public spaces, and these are people who are respected (Gauri, Shiva, Radha, Krishna). Ambapali, Magadh’s royal courtesan, was one of the most educated and wise and respected women in all of India in 500 BC. The temple sculptures of Khajuraho and Konark are not the imagination of artists but a portrayal of how society was at that time.
You speak of skimpy clothing being a “Western” concept? It was Queen Victoria’s dictate that nobody’s legs should ever be seen – not even a table’s! This squeamishness about wearing clothes that reveal some pats of the body is Victorian morality and that, my deluded friend, is a Western notion. The blouse that is worn with the sari entered the scene only with the British. The women of the Tagore family were the first to wear it and they were mocked at for mimicking western ideals. No Indian woman ever wore a blouse under her sari till then. My own great-grandmother never did. Trust me, she was completely Indian. In the Andamans, people wear no clothes at all. Are they not Indian? In the North East, a lot of women wear a long length of cloth wrapped around their bust and falling to their knees with various decorative belts (no blouse) or they wear shorts and sleeveless top. (No, that is not what all women there wear, but a significantly large number of them do.) Are they not Indian?
Coming to the second issue, it is also a part of Indian culture to never touch a woman however much her looks and her mannerisms may tempt you, unless she has expressly said yes (remember the Arjun and Urvashi incident?). But today people say that if a woman is dressed “provocatively” she is “asking to be raped”. Really? Do men have no control over their bodies? Please do not insult mankind with such notions. Men are rational human beings and can exercise restraint over their thoughts, feelings and actions.
Secondly, there is no logical connect between seeing a desirable woman and actually walking over, pulling her down, getting both your clothes off and forcing yourself into her. A mere thought or sensation cannot lead to such drastic consequences. That is a very long chain of causality and holds no ground at all. Every time you see a plate of mouth watering chicken (or avial) do you just run over, grab it and eat it? You do not wait to think whom does the food belong to, do you have a right to eat it, does it have to be acquired in a different manner? No? You just walk over, pick up the plate and polish it off? If you do, you need therapy. If you don’t, then you are bound to agree with our point of view that there is NO connection between a man seeing a woman provocatively dressed and actually assaulting her. (My note: While it is quite a stretch to compare a woman to a place of food, I think the author's is simply trying to make a strong point and please don't get held up in the metaphor.)
And then again, when has a “conservatively” dressed woman not been harassed? I myself have been stalked and whistled at while wearing a full sleeved kurta and a churidar. Is a kurta and churidar provocative? So please let us drop the farcical notion that only women who dress “provocatively” get assaulted. Not true. You will be fooling yourself if you believe in that.
The point, then, remains this – clothes have NOTHING to do with it. Whatever you wear, however you wear it, wherever you wear it. People may not like what you are wearing, but that does not translate into hurting you physically. Hence, please trash the clothing debate for once and for all. Clothes do not rape. Rapists do.
If you are a man who feels they can't relate to this:
The classic stereotyping is that women invite sexual assault with their provocative clothing and loose behaviour. The men upon seeing them are instantly aroused, cannot control their sexual urges and hence pounce on these women. This mentality paints men as irrational beings who cannot exercise restraint over their thoughts, feelings or actions. Would you like it if every woman on the road looked at you as a potential sexual offender? Or would you like it if your sister, wife, girlfriend or mother was accused of “asking for it” if they’d been sexually assaulted? If the answer to both questions was “NO”, then you know exactly why this movement is relevant to you.
After a couple of really heavy and serious posts, thought I'd lighten it up with some funny pictures I found about Wikipedia.
LOL. Explains a lot.
Your parents classroom
What my classroom used to look like (without the smartphones, mainly BBs)
People are going to have many versions of history in the future, it seems. Sounds like a good thing since we always say that history was written by the winners, hopefully won't be the case anymore.
अभी के लिए अलविदा (Just because I just realised I can do that on Blogger. How cool is that?)
We interrupt your lives with some interesting news: FLASH MOB IN BIRMINGHAM, UK :)
Recently, my friend Benita and I decided that we wanted to be part of a flash mob (after seeing numerous videos online and Friends with Benefits - starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis)
So, instead of going around looking for one, we decided to organise one. Let me just say it now, we are not trying to break any world records or anything, just trying to have some fun. And so here we have our iconic dance medley flash mob with about 40 people at the end!
Watch, enjoy, comment and share! (I suggest you go to Youtube to watch it as the display screen is bigger.)
P.S Am working on my next few blogposts so should be coming up soon :)
Ok, this is a deviation from my usual posts about the good of the world and good habits that people should have and for many, would be considered a very silly thing that really doesn’t deserve this much thought. But…after it came up during a conversation with my sister, I went as far as to Google it to see what other people thought about this (although that’s not saying a lot, since I google everything!).
What is this topic? To wear or not to wear…a bikini? Sorry, this is a woman-oriented post but I’ll be glad to hear a man’s opinion on this as well.
As an Indian who’s never lived in India but brought up by very cultural parents, I like to think that I’m an amalgamation of the best of the both worlds, traditional enough where I need to be yet modern enough in the right situations. But this confuses me.
I’m definitely NEVER going to wear a bikini in India ever (at least in present circumstances). I’m barely allowed to wear a little cleavage-baring dress there (leGasp! Just in case some future proposal is hindered?) I hate to say this but Indians are quite judgemental in nature, about bodies (I was once told by a random stranger that I need to lose weight), about a person’s character (Yes, they would judge a girl’s character by what she was wearing so bikini means…Slut alert!). Sorry, this rant basically concludes with me saying that India’s not really the right place for a bikini (or even a one-piece sometimes, but there are places for that…)
However, even if I were to wear one in UK, Singapore and all the other modern countries and beaches I’ve been to, I’m not sure I can. Like most women, I’m body conscious and a bikini just feels like a lot on display. Everyone would say, don’t worry, wear what you feel comfortable with. But at the same time, I know that I'm sometimes thinking about the woman whose love handles are so huge you can't actually see the bikini, "Well, that's a bit overconfident, innit?" But the thing is, I’m only young once and now that I’m an average size (rather than the obese I used to be), now is the time to try one on.
Yet, when my sister announced over Skype that we are going to be taking a family vacation on a cruise in January with some other families, my first thought was, I’m gonna have to wear a swimsuit infront of people who are not related to me. Before you interject, “But Shrusti, you must’ve worn a swimsuit infront of other people before!” Since I’ve been a teenager, I’ve only worn swimsuits (without tshirts or shorts covering me) with really good friends and mostly girls, due to my body insecurities. I hate that when I said this to my sister, her reply was “You know what’s funny? That was the first thought in my head too!” And that sucks – Is it because we were told that bikinis (and swimsuits in general) are culturally taboo or that the media stuffs images of celebrities with amazing bikini-bods or that it’s just a girl’s body image problem?
Well, I’m going to take a stand. I shall buy my first ever bikini and wear it to a beach (when I’m not with family) and not care who sees me. Because well, I may not be perfect but I’m gonna be confident (and hopefully that’ll cover up the imperfections).
P.S. I understand that this is generally a summer problem and I’m living in the northern hemi where it’s currently winter but since I’m going back to the tropics where it’s a constant problem, it’ll always be on my mind.
Author's edit: I applaud any other woman who has the confidence to wear a bikini. I do, whether she is Indian or otherwise. That's exactly my point, that the culture or geography has nothing to do with what you are comfortable in. And being an Indian, I think the freedom of speech allows to make comment and generalisations (which obviously doesn't apply to everybody). If we completely stopped thinking about what the world thinks, then society as we know it, will cease to exist. If we wish to coexist with as many people as possible, it's human nature to wish to please as many as possible. Rubbing people the wrong way culturally is never smart but a recent post about Slutwalks in India has given me much more confidence that attitudes in India are changing. Also some things in the comments annoyed me, but others I do agree with. It might just be my own perception of others' attitudes that is giving me this hang up. You know what? The only way to test the theory is wear one and see.
On a totally different note, I read this in the news recently and it scared the BEEP out of me!
