how green was my valley

so -- election 2012 is over. them that dance the best win, the rest lose. or dance again.
as for me, I am still the same old flounder. like they say back home, shankaran pinnem thengil thanne.
earth-shaking events take place in the lives of some, in others' earth-shattering. and then we move on.let me leave all that to the champion dancers. people who are really good at doing things. I am just wondering at the going green phenomenon.

I was thinking of the plight of New Yorkers after the hurricane.  It was sad. Sometimes it looked like a so-called Third World scene. But then there are some countries that always look like they have been perpetually hit by natural disasters. But they are the ones who really live green. They don't even eat half the amount of food the so aware forward-thinking countries throw away in a day. They do not drive cars, nor do they have washers and dryers. Many use biofuels aka cow pie  to cook their scanty food. In fact, cooking gas is rationed. Petrol is costlier than here. God forbid, they don't use tissues. why, many, unfortunately,  use the great outdoors as their toilets. My only hope is that we will not all be asked to do that in the name of going green.


 Growing up, I remember people going to the grocer with cloth bags  folded neatly in their hands, and returning with the same bags filled with well, groceries. Sometimes I saw wet bags, leaking bags -the butcher wrapped the meat in teak leaves, not plastic or styrofoam trays, same with the fishmonger.  - I saw dirty bags, clean bags, but they were washed and used, and reused. Then came plastic bags -- all on a sudden I saw how useful they were. particularly in a place like Kerala, with its monsoons, and dust and such, these bags were a godsend. Not that they were plentily available like here -- people used and reused them again. As for paper plates - there was a time when we  ate our sadya on banana leaves. use and throw bio-degradable. well, there was discrimination there too, I got to admit. The so-called lower castes had to be greener than the rest. In the feudal system that we had, the poor workers on the farm were given their meals at the landlord's. Come lunchtime, these men and women dug a small hole in the ground, put a banana leaf in it, because that is what they used as a plate. The so-called high caste people of my country had many ingenious ways that helped their world stay green. but that is another story.

In the same vein, we can talk about claypot/earthenware cooking. I am attracted to that too like any other foodie. Rustic = romantic. Environmentally safe, healthy as opposed to the teflon coated pots and pans (and cosmetics and sofa covers and all that  and more -- teflon is God -- omnipresent). But then i remember the women back then. How much time they had to spend before the stove fanning those flames and keeping the pots and pans at a certain temperature -- manually. And the cleaning. It is good that the peasants did not have that many varieties of dishes to cook for a single meal. But again, the landlord could -- his servants or women at home had all that fun.  Women could come out of the kitchen and laundry room because of these new technologies. However it will be good if they could invent technology that addresses all these factors including protection of the environment.

Years later, I see the West touting green living, and I am reminded of those godsend plastic bags. I read  that they blame the overpopulation of countries like India for the depletion of nature's resources, and the pollution of our atmosphere. Then I come to live in the West, and I see the amount of paper and plastic and electricity we use, from the milk cartons to the mountain of tissue, from take out trays to holiday/party stuff and so on. I don't mind. In fact I am glad that there are no power cuts, that the gas for cooking appears as if from nowhere, that the lights are brighter, the machines - -esp. the washer and dryer, and the dishwasher --work faster, there is hot water all the time. I am grateful for the faster cars, the cleaner surroundings. All that paper and all that bleach and Lysol  helps. In fact i wish there was enough bleach in India to clean all the public restrooms there --and that's not too many.. But just when the third worlders are starting to hope to enjoy a little bit of comfort and light, the ones who really stripped the earth of its resources for their factories and railroads, are grandstanding. Please let those poor third worlders  enjoy their earth for a bit, then they themselves will make their world greener than the greenest. till then, let'em breathe.

Why did we make  those chemicals and plastics and cars in the first place? because of their utility. there was a need for those, as human beings went forward -- to kill germs, to transport material in an efficient and clean manner, to travel faster and farther easily etc.  They genetically modified the agricultural crops to feed many with a lot of well-preserved food. Again, in the warmer climes, were pests and water abound, countermeasures had to be found too. Little land, too many people - necessity for faster, more abundant crops. It would be good if we invented nutritious tasty items which could assuage the hunger of many with the least quantity of it. Quality vs quantity.

There are times when I long for that old village where my grandmother lived. It had quaint little streets with each little thatched or tile-roofed houses surrounded by bamboo fences covered in flowering creepers. These days they have modern concrete homes with concrete compound walls. The thatched and tiled roofs leaked and needed to be replaced time and again. The concrete ones seem to be stronger , and of course, people want to be modern -- wrongly or not. The green rice fields and coconut palm groves are disappearing. I seethe at the indiscriminate developments that crop up all over my homeland. But then I think of the people who work abroad just to make enough money to build a home of their own in their homeland. These are not rich men flaunting their riches -- well, at least the majority aren't. These are poor men and women who break their backs working in foreign, unfriendly lands, bowing to inhuman treatment, just because of a little dream in their hearts -- of building a home. I can't grudge them their small joys and wishes just so that I have this nostalgic feeling for the old ways. And when I am enjoying the comforts of the western world.

The earth needs greening. sensibly. not by depriving the great suffering millions, but slowly finding new ways for new times. ways that work. I still want clean surroundings, clean food, enough food, and faster modes of travel. What I do not want is war and disease. Now, if people and nations can focus on preventing and eradicating those, then the earth would be greener. Also, later, I hope someone does not say we have depleted the sun off all his energy, that it is raining tears of ashes on us. just saying. green is my favorite color.

Go green!

the trouble with umbrage

The recent riots in Libya by angry Muslims certainly had sad consequences. Many commentators here seemed to be puzzled by the extreme anger at such a little matter.  A perplexing conundrum. Why do these people get so exaggeratedly emotional  about their faith? What makes them go berserk at what they consider slights against their religion? Doesn't matter if the slight is imagined or not. It seems like they cannot take some constructive criticism calmly, let alone a joke. What is their problem?

Well, I have to point out that there could be any number of reasons for their taking umbrage so. For one, when the majority of a group has nothing much except their faith, when they consider it as part of their identity, their dignity, then it kind of becomes pretty important to them. And there is a long, complex history between the West and its religion, and Islam. Losses have been incurred , by one side more than the other-- of wealth, of land, of resources, and after all that, being left powerless. When insulted, they cannot wage "legitimate"wars, only self-destructive unreasonable riots that affect plenty of innocent bystanders too, fatally. But having said that, I am aware of those who exploit the faith of the faithful. Most often, the majority wouldn't even have noticed the slight, they have other things to do. But the dabblers in power will bring it to their notice, and whip them up to a frenzy, blowing things out of proportion. Another facet of that animal called "politics". So, while I can try to understand the reason for their anger, I do not condone their disproportionate reaction. After all, it was a movie, and destroying their own country for that wouldn't do anything, except get some attention, and reprisals. What I am amazed more is at the puzzlement of the  commentators at the very emotions of these people. Listening to them we would think that this was a phenomenon that is very rare, that nobody else gets riled ever, when they think that they have been subject to an indignity.

Actually,  this taking umbrage is not so unusual among cultures. The reactions vary in degree and in kind from nation to nation, community to community. Everyone has a sensitive  point which someone can poke at, knowingly or unknowingly. The use of the phrase " Third  World" by a Westerner puts my back up -- although I don't go bashing the person, I feel insulted.  But then I am always taking umbrage. (Like an umbrella?) I took umbrage at Bourdain's disdain  for my homeland's cuisine. More at the people who said mean things about India, than at him ,but it was there.  In America, try being pro-life or pro-choice. You will get a taste of that umbrage, from all sides! Why does anyone in the West try not to use the N word anymore? Because they know it is not politically correct. And if someone did, he will be made to apologize right away. But "Third World" still does not get any respect. Which is all right too, because sometimes I feel that my country doesn't deserve any respect, in spite of its ancient greatness, when I think of the way it treats its women. that goes for much of the Third World, by the way, not just India. But that doesn't mean anyone else can call my country names!

The other day I read about Romney's son being asked by a reporter about his feelings when his father was called a liar by the President, publicly. (By the way, the President didn't actually call him a liar, but said some not nice things) Anyway, the poor guy said what came to his mind , as a citizen of a free country. As a son, like any son or daughter who loved their father  would say, he said something not nice. And he also added that he wasn't going to do it, that he understood the nature of the whole process. We have to remember that he did not do anything. What did the reporter expect to hear when he or she asked that question? "Oh, yes. my dad is a liar. we all are. and we are proud of it!" ? Of course he could have walked away, saying "no comment", or better, retort " YOU are a liar!", like a teenager :) But he chose to vent his frustration, honestly. But then people took umbrage. again, understandably. This is the President of the USA that we are talking about.  We have a right to take umbrage.But we needn't have really, not very much anyway,  as he had apologized to the President.  I am relieved that the President accepted his apology. (So it seems there's some extra umbrage that was wasted there,  that can be kept on reserve when the next incident of insult occurs hehe) When someone here made fun of Gandhi, Indians took umbrage, and many here were surprised. Why are they being so sensitive? What's the big deal? Can't they take a joke? But isn't it all a bit confusing? when it comes to standards? It is as if some insults and some protests are more justifiable than others, some insults are more punishable than others. As if the self-respect of one group is more valuable than others'. "All are equal, some are more equal". Who is the arbiter of these? Respect, a little bit of that would go a long way in easing that "anxiety of influence" of civilizations, of cultures. And it goes both ways. Along with that, empathy, and moderation.

On the other hand, where do we draw the line with regards to the extent and nature of of these protests against slights, and fights for freedom and faith? For I sometimes feel that a sound thrashing by their sober fellow countrymen would be very effective against these 'fighters" who make their statements by attacking women and children, innocent people, and by destroying public property, and in its extreme, committing murders. The numerous Civil wars, the supposedly ideological political party members' fights, - all these turn so ugly and in the end, hurting and taking the lives of fellow  human beings.

The problem here is not that cozy Wodehousian umbrage-taking really. It is what these protesters do with it, and how they do it. The mad fury that is unleashed at such times. The violence, the bloodshed, most of which are on themselves. and we have to remember that sometimes it is this sensitivity and self-awareness, this taking umbrage, that leads to great revolutions and struggles for independence from oppressive regimes , be in the area of politics or of gender or of race. and sometimes issues that many of us dismiss as silly at the time, can at some point turn out to be dangerous ideas of supremacy which cause holocausts of massive proportions.In any case,there should be more peaceful ways. But then a Gandhi would have to be born. But even then in this century, will it make any change?

Let's just hope that at some point in the future, these old "macho" civilizations will reach a place where they can vent their frustrations in a well-orchestrated, well-rehearsed, well-mannered function where all are dressed in the latest designer wear, sipping champagne. They will watch comedians and talk-show hosts act out the matter and make fun of the insulter in a very funny, endearing and sometimes rebellious manner. They will laugh and roll their eyes and go watch some more Reality TV, look for sales on well-co-ordinated, or mix-and-match, seasonal room decor, and have breaded snacks. Instead of lashing out at everyone blindly, they would have learned to deal with insults,  in a very civilized manner.Oh, and apologize. just apologize -- both sides. And write in their blogs, talk to a reporter if one can, and post on facebook and tweet on twitter and so on - go viral, and go on with more important stuff. forget what that idiot of a cartoonist or movie maker did, with a religion, or what that politician said about women.

For a society to reach that level of disinterestedness, albeit not completely impartial -- which level once we all reach, the world would have truly evolved into a peaceful place, where all are equally equal -- that society has to be at a certain happy place.The larger the number of the  citizens of a nation enjoy a comparatively stress-free life, whose basic needs are met more or less, have a higher standard of living, the less trouble they get into -- usually. (curiously, and very sadly, the number of serial killers seem to increase then). As it is, only those cultures that have that sense of pride, that sense of self-confidence can be really disinterested. And that number now is very low, almost nil. (There are those that have an inflated sense of importance, their superiority -- that is troublesome. )The majority of nations do not enjoy such an elevated status in their own eyes, or in the roster of nations. This disparity appears in other areas too -- gender, class, race -- not just nations. So there will be conflict -- slights, imagined or otherwise. Another side of the Foucaultian power and resistance to power. What I called ' the anxiety of influence of civilizations". And if all the leaders can be bridgers of gaps, instead of touting the differences to feel superior, rather than as an example of complexity,  we wouldn't be talking about this.

ps: are politicians saints? do they all speak the truth all the time? do we? but we don't count. let's talk of politicians. Do they all lie? Can they afford not to? Can they afford to be saints? I think it would be kind of like the great Ashoka's embrace of Buddhism -- which is not conducive to empire-building or maintaining. If all nations were to be saintly, then maybe the saintly politician can exist. Even then there is that fascination with power. How many can resist it? With education in the right manner things can change. But won't that be indoctrination? Looking at our current political atmosphere here, it was only recently that I heard about a candidate who stood for all the right issues . The ideal candidate. But how practical would his ideals be in the real America, in the real world? How would one pigeon fare among all the cats? I have seen how hard it has been for the current President to be the "bridger of gaps" among the people of his country, among nations etc. that he promised he would be. I do not see that humility, the humaneness, and the understanding that shone like a bright hopeful beacon after a dark period of arrogant jingoism, anymore. That is  probably not because he is not idealistic or humane anymore -- but that  he cannot afford to be, if he is to survive and succeed. Priorities changed.(Aside: Are saints politicians? oh well. we all die anyway.) But I do believe that if politicians are saints, then saints are politicians. They are all saints in the strength of their convictions, in their visions, and in  their willingness to work with determination towards their goals. They are all politicians, again, for the same reasons.

"Third world" woes

This is the post-postmodern age. we all know that. in this age, we abhor racism, sexism etc. We are enlightened beings, or on the way to being so. esp. celebs. Almost all of them have causes to work for. and we are grateful that their famous faces bring the attention of people with money to the fate of the underprivileged.
And we hope that that would bring some long awaited changes in the lives of the disadvantaged and the dispossessed.

These celebs of course are compassionate, they want to help these unfortunate people. But at some point, the problem peeps out. the fact that in their heart of hearts, they don't see these human beings as their equal. "all are equal, some are more equal" comes true here. oh, i hear protests.

We hear casual references like  "something that may happen in a Third World country", to denote the speaker's disbelief at a pathetic occurence in a rich country. ( that was the great humane do-gooder George Clooney). Or "showing that even the tall, blonde foreign lady wanted to use it" when a celeb is describing her philanthropic work in a certain Third World country ( this is from an article in Vogue). The funny thing is the lady here doesn't have a clue as to what an average Third Worlder thinks. The Third World woman, for instance, has so many other important immediate matters to think about and deal with -- like her daily bread, her children, and her family to mention a few, that the 'blonde lady" shouldn't have to worry about what we think. We do not have any concept of your blinding beauty just because you are tall and blonde. Well, if you were really beautiful with a loving smile, then, yes. But not if you were arrogant, and condescending. Anyway, most probably, if they are anything like us Malayalis, they will look on you as just an alien, as a totally different kind of being -- not necessarily angelic or intelligent. Some of them may be even laughing behind your back. Of course there will be those who fear you  like they fear ghosts.

So -- What do these unthinking, (maybe)  by the garden-variety philanthropic celebs tell a person like me? that is, someone of average intelligence? I get the idea that the celeb concerned has inadvertently revealed his or her sense of racial superiority. in the second quote, she might as well have added "Aryan"! I do not know why these people think that we like the name-calling? or that we must like it? It is like using the N- word, dear people! That you have deigned  to stop using. Why keep using this? Of course, once you stop using this particular word, another word or phrase will take its place, which for  a while will be fine with us third worlders -- for a time. after a while we may or may not protest against that too. that is our privilege. and dancing to our tunes is your burden. :) after all, third worlds did not appear overnight on their own. we know our faults, our lacks, our situation better than you. we will call ourselves names, you do not have that right.


It is this  uncomfortable, distasteful mixture of compassion and contempt of the white race toward the so-called Third World, that makes some of  us and many of the underprivileged, distrustful of these white good samaritans. this is why the whites see hatred in the eyes of many of the poor,  even as they accept the numerous kindnesses. somehow they know, because they are not stupid. and particularly because the precedents are not that good. Historically, the advent of the  white man into the  Third World countries has not been advantageous to the Third Worlder. In fact, they know that it is this "discovery" by the white man that played a huge role in making them Third in the first place. These modern day human rights activists are the descendants  of people who made grabbing what belonged to others, an art. And no matter how much the outward trappings may change, inside, most of them are the same as their ancestors. Unless they acknowledge this contradiction/self-delusion, and change -- from the inside.

I have seen this in a university setting, where the ideas of equality and justice are accepted as everyone's birthrights. Professors who strive to be fair, non-racist, evolved beings, gay men who try the same thing, but at some point,one can see through the pretense -- conscious or otherwise. They delude themselves into thinking that they are  highly enlightened regarding the race issue, just because they are afraid to be mean to the black students,  or because they are in the field of arts and humanities, or because they are outside the mainstream as they are not heterosexual. But that doesn't naturally make them non-racists.

Now, there is a white man who acknowledges this uncomfortable truth in his writings. Henning Mankell. That is just one thing, and one very important thing -- that makes him better and different from all other great white writers or scholars, in my eyes. and he is an Aquarian too! :)



PS : A variation of this covert racism is parallelled in the area of sexism. Thus we see even educated men stoop to harping on annoyingly inane jokes that make use of outdated notions about women's nature. That there are men who find such types of jokes even remotely intelligent or  funny, in this age, is unbelievable. The basic reason here too is the contempt that they hold in their heart of hearts for women, underneath all that pretense of respect and honor.And also the fear that women are getting ahead, that tradition and mores made by men may not be able to keep women suppressed for much longer.