Cultural Pollution?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
Israeli Couple Fined for Kissing in India

India may be the land of the Kamasutra, the ancient treatise on sex, but public displays of affection remain strictly taboo in the country's hinterlands, as an Israeli couple found out.

They were fined 500 Indian rupees ($11) each for embracing and kissing after getting married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in the northwestern Indian town Pushkar, the Asian Age newspaper reported Wednesday.

The Israeli Embassy in New Delhi confirmed the incident and identified the couple as Alon Orpaz and Tehila Salev, who decided to get married while visiting India. The embassy did not provide additional details.

The Asian Age said priests at Pushkar's Brahma temple were so incensed when the couple smooched as hymns were still being chanted that they filed a police complaint.

A court in Pushkar then charged them with indecency and ordered them to pay the fine or face 10 days in prison, the newspaper reported. The couple decided to pay, it said.

"We will not tolerate any cultural pollution of this sort," the newspaper quoted a priest, Ladoo Ram Sharma, as saying.
 
That's how some cultures are.

Every country has their version of liberal and conservative, tradition and modernism. Go to america and you can say whatever you want in a song, any word, any image, anything at all, rape, sex, drugs, you name it.

:shrug:


Every country has it's ... peculiarities ...
 
For Honor said:
That's how some cultures are.

Every country has their version of liberal and conservative, tradition and modernism. Go to america and you can say whatever you want in a song, any word, any image, anything at all, rape, sex, drugs, you name it.

:shrug:


Every country has it's ... peculiarities ...

But is it right?

Is this a basic human right taken away, or is our society too loose?

I think it's somewhat irresponsible to just throw up your shoulders and say this is how they are.
 
And who really cares if they had to pay $11?

If you want to marry in another country and especially with a ceremony of another culture, you better know the rules, ´ts as simple as that. it´s also strange that an Israeli couple is upset about that, I wonder what would happen if they kissed wildly just when there is a Jewish tradition. I am sure some Jewish people would feel disturbed.

A newspaper reporting this is plain dumb. Apparently they don´t know how to fill their papers with good articles anymore. And the pair there, they should take it with some humor.

Respect other cultures when you go there to marry! If not, stay in Israel to marry, or go to Europe or America, where no one will raise an eyebrow.

I know the region of Pushkar is said to be very beautiful. Have you ever heard how the traditional weddings are performed there? One of my friends just visited India last December and told me about the time he was invited to that wedding.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:


A newspaper reporting this is plain dumb.



that is what i was thinking too


if some European got a ticket or fine for going topless on a USA public beach
her countrymen would probably think American customs are overly restrictive
 
deep said:
that is what i was thinking too

if some European got a ticket or fine for going topless on a USA public beach
her countrymen would probably think American customs are overly restrictive


Actually the same would apply, in theory at least, on most European public beaches......topless or nudist beaches are limited to certain areas.
 
i think it is not to west's credit to judge other cultures from their own cultural standpoint. customs, cultures are quite different in parts of the world, and you can not impose change on others because you think they are wrong. only they themselves can change, that is if they wish to. i find it rather arrogant and self-righteous to say 'oh look what they do there, thats so wrong'. dont get me wrong, i am not very thrilled with conservatism myself, but there is a very fine line when youre discussing such issues in an international context.

on the other hand, i dont see what's newsworthy here :huh:
 
I guess we can duck the question of whether a country can/should dictate its cultural preferences, and whether that principle should apply from across all countries.

If we embrace multiculturalism, can we honestly turn around and support cultural protectionism?
 
nbcrusader said:
I guess we can duck the question of whether a country can/should dictate its cultural preferences, and whether that principle should apply from across all countries.

If we embrace multiculturalism, can we honestly turn around and support cultural protectionism?



when you are in another country, you are subject to it's laws.

this seems silly, i agree, but i don't see, really, what the big deal is. if we are talking about gross violations of human rights (i.e., female genital mutilation), then i think that trumps any sort of cultural protectionism. however, in a situation like this, what's the big deal?
 
Are we really surprised? Christian conservatives are doing everything they can to stop the so-called "cultural pollution" of gay marriage.

I can imagine that getting Hinduism to change would be as futile as getting Christianity to change.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
Boy, that card looks familiar. :huh:

So was the point of this thread to berate a foreign culture/religion and subsequently prop up your own as some ideal? That's the explicit definition of "ethnocentrism."

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:

If we embrace multiculturalism, can we honestly turn around and support cultural protectionism?

Embracing multiculturism by definition means respecting cultural differences.
 
joyfulgirl said:


Embracing multiculturism by definition means respecting cultural differences.



while i wholly agree with the above definition, is there a point where that ends and universalist norms of human rights (which are, i do admit, a western construct) begins?

i'm thinking specifically about female genital mutilation.
 
Irvine511 said:




while i wholly agree with the above definition, is there a point where that ends and universalist norms of human rights (which are, i do admit, a western construct) begins?

i'm thinking specifically about female genital mutilation.

Yes, absolutely. When does point begin? I'm not sure. Perhaps when a country's own citizens begin to voice opposition to what was until that point accepted as a cultural tradition, which is certainly the case with female mutilation.
 
If this thread were about that
the replies would have been different


In India they do not even have on screen kissing in movies

I don't live there and "get" their culture




American culture must seem bizarre to many outsiders, our high tolerance for violence and fear of the nude human body
 
nbcrusader said:
If we embrace multiculturalism, can we honestly turn around and support cultural protectionism?

Is that what you were trying to coax out of this? I don't know; seems like a bit of a stretch to me. It's not as if they were Indian Jews getting married at the synagogue in Cochin or Bombay--they were (clearly) secular tourists getting married in a "traditional Hindu ceremony" (bit of a misnomer, given the bride and groom weren't Hindus--though Christian churches here marry openly non-Christian couples all the time, something I've never understood).

If you want a "traditional Hindu ceremony," then best read up on what the conduct expected at them is, in my view. Not to do so is disrespectful at best and could lead to (as here) unintentional illegal indecency, at worst. Nowhere in India is a public smooch a good idea, anyway; even in Bollywood, it's still quite rare.

Pushkar--which I've been to twice--is a major Hindu pilgrimage center, not the Las Vegas of India, so I'm not surprised this would be the response to such a thing there. I am somewhat surprised that this couple were able to arrange a "Hindu" ceremony in the first place--although the Brahma temple is among the most famous in India, and therefore more used to and accommodating of tourists than others. In smaller towns and villages, temples are quite often closed to non-Hindus.

Regarding "cultural pollution"--that phrase is a standard rhetorical trope in Indian (media) English, much like "family values" is here. In fact, it means pretty much the same thing in usage--i.e., it's a way of getting people worked up about changing value systems by portraying the changes as an assault on the society or culture. In this case, the threat would not be Hindus clamoring to snog at weddings--remember, these people weren't even Indians--but rather, how far Hindus should go in allowing tourists to "make themselves at home" in what is, after all, a house of God from their point of view.

whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
it´s also strange that an Israeli couple is upset about that, I wonder what would happen if they kissed wildly just when there is a Jewish tradition. I am sure some Jewish people would feel disturbed.
:eyebrow: A kiss is a perfectly normal part of modern Jewish weddings, including Orthodox ones. It was certainly part of mine!

I know the region of Pushkar is said to be very beautiful. Have you ever heard how the traditional weddings are performed there? One of my friends just visited India last December and told me about the time he was invited to that wedding.
South Asian politics is my academic field, so I travel to India often. I have attended several Hindu weddings, although never in Pushkar. They are indeed fantastically elaborate events, although guests do not generally watch that much of the ceremony itself because (if it's really a full-on traditional one) it lasts for hours.
 
deep said:


American culture must seem bizarre to many outsiders, our high tolerance for violence and fear of the nude human body

Indeed. It also seems bizarre to insiders like me.
 
yolland said:


Is that what you were trying to coax out of this? I don't know; seems like a bit of a stretch to me. It's not as if they were Indian Jews getting married at the synagogue in Cochin or Bombay--they were (clearly) secular tourists getting married in a "traditional Hindu ceremony" (bit of a misnomer, given the bride and groom weren't Hindus--though Christian churches here marry openly non-Christian couples all the time, something I've never understood).

If you want a "traditional Hindu ceremony," then best read up on what the conduct expected at them is, in my view. Not to do so is disrespectful at best and could lead to (as here) unintentional illegal indecency, at worst. Nowhere in India is a public smooch a good idea, anyway; even in Bollywood, it's still quite rare.

Pushkar--which I've been to twice--is a major Hindu pilgrimage center, not the Las Vegas of India, so I'm not surprised this would be the response to such a thing there. I am somewhat surprised that this couple were able to arrange a "Hindu" ceremony in the first place--although the Brahma temple is among the most famous in India, and therefore more used to and accommodating of tourists than others. In smaller towns and villages, temples are quite often closed to non-Hindus.

Regarding "cultural pollution"--that phrase is a standard rhetorical trope in Indian (media) English, much like "family values" is here. In fact, it means pretty much the same thing in usage--i.e., it's a way of getting people worked up about changing value systems by portraying the changes as an assault on the society or culture. In this case, the threat would not be Hindus clamoring to snog at weddings--remember, these people weren't even Indians--but rather, how far Hindus should go in allowing tourists to "make themselves at home" in what is, after all, a house of God from their point of view.


:eyebrow: A kiss is a perfectly normal part of modern Jewish weddings, including Orthodox ones. It was certainly part of mine!


South Asian politics is my academic field, so I travel to India often. I have attended several Hindu weddings, although never in Pushkar. They are indeed fantastically elaborate events, although guests do not generally watch that much of the ceremony itself because (if it's really a full-on traditional one) it lasts for hours.



terrific, informative post.

:up:

am going to a big Hindu wedding next year in SanFran. can't wait.
 
deep said:
if some European got a ticket or fine for going topless on a USA public beach
her countrymen would probably think American customs are overly restrictive

And I'd guess quite a number of people in here would say that we shouldn't have a standard, because, after all, "who's standard should we use."
 
nbcrusader said:


And I'd guess quite a number of people in here would say that we shouldn't have a standard, because, after all, "who's standard should we use."



but we do have a standard in the US. women do not go topless unless it is an official, or unofficial, nude beach. it's very organic.

thus, a German woman would have to follow these rules if she were sunbathing in Florida.

in my opinion, i could care less about bare breasts on a beach, and i think the need to cover them up comes from our country's continual infantilization of male heterosexuality -- you know, the boys-will-be-boys.

but it's still the norm, so that's that.
 
I'd say that if you're getting married in a foreign country, brush up on the laws and marriage customs of that particular country. Many Americans get married in Turkey. Trust me, they've researched the place and its culture until they're blue in the face.
 
nbcrusader said:
And I'd guess quite a number of people in here would say that we shouldn't have a standard, because, after all, "who's standard should we use."

Like who? You're in here a lot more than I am, but I can't think of many, honestly. I can think of several, like Irvine, who I'd predict would support allowing topless beaches (for example); and then there's quite a few, like me, who don't care one way or the other...but really, I can't think of many whom I'd predict a "standards are inherently evil" argument from.

There's a difference between opposing the status quo--or one group's attempts to monopolize the right to set it--and arguing that there should be no status quo at all.
 
yolland said:

I can think of several, like Irvine, who I'd predict would support allowing topless beaches (for example); and then there's quite a few, like me, who don't care one way or the other...



?

luckily, for my interests, the norm is topless ...

;)
 
Irvine511 said:
?

luckily, for my interests, the norm is topless ...

;)

Oh, I know! I'm referring to the position in your previous post, which (at the risk of presumptuousness) is roughly what I'd have predicted it to be, based on previous threads on related topics. Yeah, now that I read my wording, I guess it could be taken as "now you know if it's about boobs, Irvine will be so all over that!" :hmm: :yikes:

Anyway, what I really want to know is who all these alleged snarky relativists are. I'm just not seeing them.
 
Back
Top Bottom