The Immoral Family
A Shiraz March 2, 2004
#48 Posted by solitude on March 23, 2004 6:45:33 am
#46 by mubakr on March 16, 2004 10:03pm PT
Thanks for the compliments. If my words have made one person feel good it is worth all the attacks and the abuse from the traditionally insane.
You are fortunate to have come across a wise person. I was plagued for the longest time and still am about my love for my family and my desire to individuate.
Thanks for the compliments. If my words have made one person feel good it is worth all the attacks and the abuse from the traditionally insane.
You are fortunate to have come across a wise person. I was plagued for the longest time and still am about my love for my family and my desire to individuate.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#47 Posted by soysauce on March 17, 2004 10:23:27 am
#45 Shiraz,
Apologize? Surely you jest, in a post dripping with condescension?
This post of yours also is exemplary for dissembling - You had no obligation nor is it humanly possible to write an essay that makes sense to everyone. BUT, in your half a dozen or so follow-ups to me your ``tutorials`` have been in the nature of telling me what you couldn`t do in your article. You never made an attempt at a coherent case. In the last 2 posts you have been sulking - a bit too much.
Prove that nepotism is taboo in the US. If not, all your arguments are a waste.
Bye bye.
Apologize? Surely you jest, in a post dripping with condescension?
This post of yours also is exemplary for dissembling - You had no obligation nor is it humanly possible to write an essay that makes sense to everyone. BUT, in your half a dozen or so follow-ups to me your ``tutorials`` have been in the nature of telling me what you couldn`t do in your article. You never made an attempt at a coherent case. In the last 2 posts you have been sulking - a bit too much.
Prove that nepotism is taboo in the US. If not, all your arguments are a waste.
Bye bye.
#46 Posted by mubakr on March 16, 2004 10:03:55 pm
Shiraz:
good work partner. to be honest, for quite sometime, i`ve not read a good critique of the family system that eventually effects - or disturbs if i may say - the very social fiber of countries like pakistan. the family compulsions are exactly the reasons due to which one tends to get corrupt and i myself have been in this very delicate balance. my confusion was resolved when i 1) carefully analyzed the whole family chemistry in our society 2) spoke to an illiterate - yes completely illiterate - woman on this issue. i was feeling the guilt for taking decision which your artical encourages and was deeply depressed. she said that if ``parents have got some rights, they`ve got some duties too!`` bang and clouds over my confused mind were gone!
i`d strongly encourage you to keep touching upon these issues and you have my best wishes.
Mubashir
good work partner. to be honest, for quite sometime, i`ve not read a good critique of the family system that eventually effects - or disturbs if i may say - the very social fiber of countries like pakistan. the family compulsions are exactly the reasons due to which one tends to get corrupt and i myself have been in this very delicate balance. my confusion was resolved when i 1) carefully analyzed the whole family chemistry in our society 2) spoke to an illiterate - yes completely illiterate - woman on this issue. i was feeling the guilt for taking decision which your artical encourages and was deeply depressed. she said that if ``parents have got some rights, they`ve got some duties too!`` bang and clouds over my confused mind were gone!
i`d strongly encourage you to keep touching upon these issues and you have my best wishes.
Mubashir
#45 Posted by solitude on March 16, 2004 1:03:50 pm
#44 by soysauce on March 15, 2004 11:26am PT
I apologize if you felt offended by anything I said.
What disturbs me also along with the hostility of your tone are subjective personal opinions of yours like
``cannot afford to be faint hearted``
``writing lacks logical cohesion``
``hide behind vaguenss``
``all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal``
``vague allegations`` along with remarks previously mentioned.
I don`t wish to convert, nor would I like to spend half my post explaining to you what I REALLY meant. I believe I was quite clear but I cannot make what I write completely comprehensible to everyone. Even though I wish I could give more one-on-one tutorials on what I am trying to say unfortunately I would rather write something original than explain and re explain what I have already written (just a personal preference).
I apologize if you felt offended by anything I said.
What disturbs me also along with the hostility of your tone are subjective personal opinions of yours like
``cannot afford to be faint hearted``
``writing lacks logical cohesion``
``hide behind vaguenss``
``all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal``
``vague allegations`` along with remarks previously mentioned.
I don`t wish to convert, nor would I like to spend half my post explaining to you what I REALLY meant. I believe I was quite clear but I cannot make what I write completely comprehensible to everyone. Even though I wish I could give more one-on-one tutorials on what I am trying to say unfortunately I would rather write something original than explain and re explain what I have already written (just a personal preference).
#44 Posted by soysauce on March 15, 2004 11:26:02 am
#42 Dear Shiraz,
Perhaps you should go to the very first post you addressed to me to see what stereotyping, presumptuosness and aggressive tone are like. Someone who dares criticise publicly cannot afford to be faint hearted.
If you do not care to interact further, that`s fine. I do think you are a fine writer but one whose nonfiction writing lacks logical cohesion. You make specific points and hide behind vaguenss when questioned. I give an example of a prominant company which advertises its practice of nepotism boldly and all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal. And some vague allegations about Italy - when questioned you say it was southern italy but then change your mind and say it`s all the same culture. Think about some prominant criticism of nepotism within american public life and think about whether it resonates with the public or not. Above all, keep an open mind. You have shown very little inclination to modify any of your opinions. One would think you had strong reasons to believe what you believe and yet you cannot explain them, not for lack of words, I`m sure. Very strange...
Perhaps you should go to the very first post you addressed to me to see what stereotyping, presumptuosness and aggressive tone are like. Someone who dares criticise publicly cannot afford to be faint hearted.
If you do not care to interact further, that`s fine. I do think you are a fine writer but one whose nonfiction writing lacks logical cohesion. You make specific points and hide behind vaguenss when questioned. I give an example of a prominant company which advertises its practice of nepotism boldly and all you have to offer is back-handed dismissal. And some vague allegations about Italy - when questioned you say it was southern italy but then change your mind and say it`s all the same culture. Think about some prominant criticism of nepotism within american public life and think about whether it resonates with the public or not. Above all, keep an open mind. You have shown very little inclination to modify any of your opinions. One would think you had strong reasons to believe what you believe and yet you cannot explain them, not for lack of words, I`m sure. Very strange...
#43 Posted by solitude on March 14, 2004 12:34:16 pm
#41 by PM on March 12, 2004 1:54pm PT
You have read my work before, so when you write to me be gentle and considerate of my sensitive nature. However if you write to attack then its another thing. Write your own article about the virtues of whatever it is you stand for. I wrote because of the following remark.
``the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society.``
Marital loyalty vs. loyalty towards people who are your blood relative. Love for your beloved and the one you choose to love vs. those who you are obligated to love simply because you are born with them.
I wrote something after thinking about this issue. If you are interested I will email it to you. My email is arthurshiraz@yahoo.com
``the loyalty-corruption link``
There is a direct link between nepotism and close-knit families and over all corruption of a nation. I posted a link of a survey conducted in one of the interacts (world values survey). You can go there to see the actual data so its no longer just
``but in slipping in brotherhood of Islam, ``
I don`t know if you realize how the brotherhood and most extremist Islamic groups work. Its hard to get in unless you belong to the right family. Your devotion will only get you a bomb jacket but if you want to lead these organizations or stay alive within its structure you have to be related to someone within the organization (in most cases).
``if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption``
What makes you think i am looking for evidence ? It was a statement I made saying that legislation cannot control corruption. The family structures have to change.
``he patently capitalistic value of more being better ``
I can`t help you with your anti-capitalistic stances or your communist leanings or the grudge you seem to hold against America etc. sorry its out of the scope of the article.
``the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms``
Have you heard of gen. X? Your conceptions of the west are cliched and in alignment with the most fundamentalist Muslims. PM that cannot be good for you or your lovers :) (in the long run)
``S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future! ``
Thats the socialist influence in the US.
``Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore ... modernized and progressed more than a generation ago``
It takes time for economic progress to encourage individualism in members of society.
PM, the unfortunate thing about Liberalism in Pakistan is it can be heavily influenced by the socialists. I have outgrown that socialist, anarchist, environmentalist thing :) but again much in Pakistan is caught in a time warp, like a freeze frame of sorts. Due credit for this attempt at stagnation can be attributed to the islamists with their desire to drag us back to the ideal time : the 6th century.
You have read my work before, so when you write to me be gentle and considerate of my sensitive nature. However if you write to attack then its another thing. Write your own article about the virtues of whatever it is you stand for. I wrote because of the following remark.
``the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society.``
Marital loyalty vs. loyalty towards people who are your blood relative. Love for your beloved and the one you choose to love vs. those who you are obligated to love simply because you are born with them.
I wrote something after thinking about this issue. If you are interested I will email it to you. My email is arthurshiraz@yahoo.com
``the loyalty-corruption link``
There is a direct link between nepotism and close-knit families and over all corruption of a nation. I posted a link of a survey conducted in one of the interacts (world values survey). You can go there to see the actual data so its no longer just
``but in slipping in brotherhood of Islam, ``
I don`t know if you realize how the brotherhood and most extremist Islamic groups work. Its hard to get in unless you belong to the right family. Your devotion will only get you a bomb jacket but if you want to lead these organizations or stay alive within its structure you have to be related to someone within the organization (in most cases).
``if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption``
What makes you think i am looking for evidence ? It was a statement I made saying that legislation cannot control corruption. The family structures have to change.
``he patently capitalistic value of more being better ``
I can`t help you with your anti-capitalistic stances or your communist leanings or the grudge you seem to hold against America etc. sorry its out of the scope of the article.
``the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms``
Have you heard of gen. X? Your conceptions of the west are cliched and in alignment with the most fundamentalist Muslims. PM that cannot be good for you or your lovers :) (in the long run)
``S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future! ``
Thats the socialist influence in the US.
``Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore ... modernized and progressed more than a generation ago``
It takes time for economic progress to encourage individualism in members of society.
PM, the unfortunate thing about Liberalism in Pakistan is it can be heavily influenced by the socialists. I have outgrown that socialist, anarchist, environmentalist thing :) but again much in Pakistan is caught in a time warp, like a freeze frame of sorts. Due credit for this attempt at stagnation can be attributed to the islamists with their desire to drag us back to the ideal time : the 6th century.
#42 Posted by solitude on March 14, 2004 10:24:46 am
#39 by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29pm PT
When one writes as you have one has the following motivations :
1) the desire to be contrary or the desire to argue for the sake of arguement. This includes making up things the opponent allegedly said, extrapolating and acting sanctimonious and generally being very aggressive in tone.
2) You truly misunderstood what I wrote or do not understand what I have said.
I will assume #2 and clarify what I can. Nonetheless it would be foolish to think so in light of words like ``Not kicking you too hard I hope...`` #39 by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29pm PT
``If Sicily can taint all of Italy``
Sicily cannot taint all of Italy. People are intelligent enough to tell the difference between the North and South of Italy. However there are general values and cultures shared by both N. and S. Italy that exhibit similar symptoms.
``If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in``
I cited the Amish as a classic example of a primitive subculture`s presance within America. This article is NOT about the Amish nor about America, nor about Southern Italy.
``It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing``
Family can lead to survival but not to development (as stated in the article). It is helpful to some primitive extent (tribal cultures and societies) but not if you have greater ambitions.
`` so far have failed to substantiate ...``
`` you dissembling like this``
``you start citing irrelevant stuff ``
``sheds light on your own mindset.. ``
``What`s so damn hard to understand about this?``
``You didn`t really answer the point``
Since your attitude in writing to me has not changed I will note this to be an end to this discussion with you. You seem to be riling yourself up over presumptions and extrapolate excessively instead of being empathetic (like asking ``Is this what you meant?``. Perhaps such an attitude helps you personally but it does not make my task of explaining any easier. When you wish to be reasonable rather than antagonistic we can talk again. On my part I will strive to make the progressions more clearer in my future works. Thanks for the compliments but they do not make up for your rhetoric and even come across as insincere.
When one writes as you have one has the following motivations :
1) the desire to be contrary or the desire to argue for the sake of arguement. This includes making up things the opponent allegedly said, extrapolating and acting sanctimonious and generally being very aggressive in tone.
2) You truly misunderstood what I wrote or do not understand what I have said.
I will assume #2 and clarify what I can. Nonetheless it would be foolish to think so in light of words like ``Not kicking you too hard I hope...`` #39 by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29pm PT
``If Sicily can taint all of Italy``
Sicily cannot taint all of Italy. People are intelligent enough to tell the difference between the North and South of Italy. However there are general values and cultures shared by both N. and S. Italy that exhibit similar symptoms.
``If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in``
I cited the Amish as a classic example of a primitive subculture`s presance within America. This article is NOT about the Amish nor about America, nor about Southern Italy.
``It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing``
Family can lead to survival but not to development (as stated in the article). It is helpful to some primitive extent (tribal cultures and societies) but not if you have greater ambitions.
`` so far have failed to substantiate ...``
`` you dissembling like this``
``you start citing irrelevant stuff ``
``sheds light on your own mindset.. ``
``What`s so damn hard to understand about this?``
``You didn`t really answer the point``
Since your attitude in writing to me has not changed I will note this to be an end to this discussion with you. You seem to be riling yourself up over presumptions and extrapolate excessively instead of being empathetic (like asking ``Is this what you meant?``. Perhaps such an attitude helps you personally but it does not make my task of explaining any easier. When you wish to be reasonable rather than antagonistic we can talk again. On my part I will strive to make the progressions more clearer in my future works. Thanks for the compliments but they do not make up for your rhetoric and even come across as insincere.
#41 Posted by PM on March 12, 2004 1:54:38 pm
The little that is of merit in this article will surely be lost to the much that is questionable at best and outrageous at worst.
I believe the author makes a compelling point in suggesting that the unquestioned obedience to elders, ``typical of pre-capitalist feudal societies`` should be challenged. No one would argue with that, except that he actually uses the word `loyalty` instead of `obedience`, assumes that this level of blind obedience is indeed uniform all over Pakistan, and, to top it off, takes for granted that the capitalist values (of detachment from all such ties, we are to assume) are desirable substitutes. ``If we are to change the face of our country``, he prophesizes, ``we must first learn to question the values that are taught to our children.``
Not altogether bad advice, except that one could, and often does, hear the same offered to capitalist societies. Surely, the author would not have us believe that all the ills of our society stem from this admittedly often exaggerated sense of loyalty.
Perhaps it is just poor writing strategy, but the opening paragraph renders the author guilty of ridiculous extrapolation. Then again, it offers some interesting insight into motivation. But I will not dwell on this.
If one can look past such inappropriate generalizing, one must then contend with logical flaws. Shiraz sahib furnishes data relating to family-orientedness and Corruption Perception[!] Index but fails to show a causal link. He would do well to apply the same (il)logic to data from, say, his adopted nation`s capital, where single motherhood and (one may assume) individuality is among the highest of all the Nation`s districts.
The author asks ``How can loyalty to the family be bad? Can you imagine a citizen of the third world turning his own blood brother in to the Police to be tried for terrorism?``, perhaps forgetting that in the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society. But one does not.
In contending that ``[o]ne cannot expect the government to control corruption by making law after law when the unwritten law of the land, the very values of the people of Pakistan creates an environment of corruption that rivals that of Uganda and Kenya.`` the author not only runs away with his somewhat questionable theory of the loyalty-corruption link, but makes the telling error of assuming that these are the ``very values`` (that is, the prime movers) that inform social life here. A bit of a stretch at best, but one can see where he hopes to get reach with it, in the very next sentence: ``The Italian mafia and the brotherhood of Islam is [sic] an extreme example of this ``we hear and obey`` loyalty.``
Well, at least he qualifies ‘loyalty’ here, but in slipping in ``brotherhood of Islam``, one wonders whether the author realizes he`s shooting himself in the foot. If such loyalty were indeed an operating principle, one would expect less, not more, corruption in a religiously near-homogeneous society like Pakistan. Quite clearly, ties of blood and other values like good old-fashioned greed take precedence over any sense of loyalty engendered by religion- whatever the pitch of sloganeering after Juma prayers. And if Mr. Shiraz would have us believe that it is Islam`s stress on brotherhood that is the cause of existing corruption - overriding all precepts enjoining justice and fair play -then I have a few tails, complete with dogs attached, that he might be interested in.
Further, if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption, he need look no further than the capitalist society in which he resides. Or perhaps he has was on vacation to Mars over the past two years! At any rate, he`d do well to consider other factors contributing to corruption, including the patently capitalistic value of more being better, even if it is not,/I> to be spread around the tribe.
The author goes on: ``Primitive societies … stress loyalty to the family and urge the dominant classes to help the less fortunate. In contrast, modern rationally driven market economies stress individualism and concern for self. It is this individualism that is conducive to capital accumulation.``
Again, no one would argue much with the Protestant ethics of work and egalitarianism. But the author has perhaps failed to notice that, even in the society which he seemingly idolizes for it ‘accumulation’ of 21 percent of the world’s capital, one in eight, or over 30 million people, live below the poverty line, despite having an economy built, initially, on slave or pseudo slave labour and that continues to export poverty, while its rich keep getting richer. Viva individualism/capitalism indeed!
The rest of the essay again takes anecdotes and extrapolates too liberally from them. Yes, many U.S. immigrants are expected to send money back home even when not the most opportune time. Much of this is a result of a misconception of the US as the land of Milk and Honey. But, for every such hapless immigrant -hapless, indeed, only if he`s imbibed a thorough sense of ``I/Myslef``-there is the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms.
And if ammah and abba expect to be supported by, and even live with, Munna and his kids in their old age, it is because they would have spent their last penny not on pension funds and Roth IRAs with which to later contribute to environmental destruction in trotting the globe on geriatric tours, but on Munna`s higher education and that bangla for him and his brothers in Gulberg. In any case, the contention that Westerns are not paying for their parents’ upkeep (and in fact, will have their children pay as well) through their taxes, is merely laughable-- unless Mr Shiraz knows of some way by which his present S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future!
The sheer selfishness and cruelty, indeed, of the older, Eastern, generations!!
The author writes, ``They say that wherever modernity and prosperity touches its feet `the children question their elders`. The children are rebelling in traditionally Confucian but fast modernizing societies like Thailand and Singapore and Japan. I say that if you wish to modernize and progress then differentiate yourself from your father.``
Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore had ``modernized and progressed`` more than a generation ago, and that if anything, the present-day rebelliousness of the youth, if true, coincides with downturns in those economies. Whatever the driving forces behind the changing attitudes, and whatever their merits, it is difficult to see how they can be seen as products of the now allowing ‘progress’.
It would be more realistic, though still far from accurate, to see the these attitudinal changes as products of the more recent wave of global capital flux where the values of individualistic get-rich-quick capitalism ride rough-shod over all considerations of tradition and `culture`, in any meaningful sense of that word.
But then this, to the author, is presumably a good thing, because ``[t]he close-knit family encourages physical and sexual abuse of children.[!] The traditional family restricts the child’s individuation. The harm done to our children and our members translates into harm inflicted on our societies. Individuate for your children if you don’t have the courage to do it for yourself.
Ah yes, indeed, if all else fails, invoke the poor, innocent, children. And nothing, of course, works better than throwing in abuse. So much the better if it`s sexual. Much better we just throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Now if only we were all `individuated` enough to go on to buy two-garage homes like they do in the suburbs of Boston, our children would be so much safer! And our societies so much …cooler!
I believe the author makes a compelling point in suggesting that the unquestioned obedience to elders, ``typical of pre-capitalist feudal societies`` should be challenged. No one would argue with that, except that he actually uses the word `loyalty` instead of `obedience`, assumes that this level of blind obedience is indeed uniform all over Pakistan, and, to top it off, takes for granted that the capitalist values (of detachment from all such ties, we are to assume) are desirable substitutes. ``If we are to change the face of our country``, he prophesizes, ``we must first learn to question the values that are taught to our children.``
Not altogether bad advice, except that one could, and often does, hear the same offered to capitalist societies. Surely, the author would not have us believe that all the ills of our society stem from this admittedly often exaggerated sense of loyalty.
Perhaps it is just poor writing strategy, but the opening paragraph renders the author guilty of ridiculous extrapolation. Then again, it offers some interesting insight into motivation. But I will not dwell on this.
If one can look past such inappropriate generalizing, one must then contend with logical flaws. Shiraz sahib furnishes data relating to family-orientedness and Corruption Perception[!] Index but fails to show a causal link. He would do well to apply the same (il)logic to data from, say, his adopted nation`s capital, where single motherhood and (one may assume) individuality is among the highest of all the Nation`s districts.
The author asks ``How can loyalty to the family be bad? Can you imagine a citizen of the third world turning his own blood brother in to the Police to be tried for terrorism?``, perhaps forgetting that in the US of A, there are laws protecting man/woman from having to testify against a spouse. One could ask why the principle of justice should not supercede the bonds of marital loyalty in capitalist society. But one does not.
In contending that ``[o]ne cannot expect the government to control corruption by making law after law when the unwritten law of the land, the very values of the people of Pakistan creates an environment of corruption that rivals that of Uganda and Kenya.`` the author not only runs away with his somewhat questionable theory of the loyalty-corruption link, but makes the telling error of assuming that these are the ``very values`` (that is, the prime movers) that inform social life here. A bit of a stretch at best, but one can see where he hopes to get reach with it, in the very next sentence: ``The Italian mafia and the brotherhood of Islam is [sic] an extreme example of this ``we hear and obey`` loyalty.``
Well, at least he qualifies ‘loyalty’ here, but in slipping in ``brotherhood of Islam``, one wonders whether the author realizes he`s shooting himself in the foot. If such loyalty were indeed an operating principle, one would expect less, not more, corruption in a religiously near-homogeneous society like Pakistan. Quite clearly, ties of blood and other values like good old-fashioned greed take precedence over any sense of loyalty engendered by religion- whatever the pitch of sloganeering after Juma prayers. And if Mr. Shiraz would have us believe that it is Islam`s stress on brotherhood that is the cause of existing corruption - overriding all precepts enjoining justice and fair play -then I have a few tails, complete with dogs attached, that he might be interested in.
Further, if Shiraz is looking for evidence that one cannot expect legislation to control all corruption, he need look no further than the capitalist society in which he resides. Or perhaps he has was on vacation to Mars over the past two years! At any rate, he`d do well to consider other factors contributing to corruption, including the patently capitalistic value of more being better, even if it is not,/I> to be spread around the tribe.
The author goes on: ``Primitive societies … stress loyalty to the family and urge the dominant classes to help the less fortunate. In contrast, modern rationally driven market economies stress individualism and concern for self. It is this individualism that is conducive to capital accumulation.``
Again, no one would argue much with the Protestant ethics of work and egalitarianism. But the author has perhaps failed to notice that, even in the society which he seemingly idolizes for it ‘accumulation’ of 21 percent of the world’s capital, one in eight, or over 30 million people, live below the poverty line, despite having an economy built, initially, on slave or pseudo slave labour and that continues to export poverty, while its rich keep getting richer. Viva individualism/capitalism indeed!
The rest of the essay again takes anecdotes and extrapolates too liberally from them. Yes, many U.S. immigrants are expected to send money back home even when not the most opportune time. Much of this is a result of a misconception of the US as the land of Milk and Honey. But, for every such hapless immigrant -hapless, indeed, only if he`s imbibed a thorough sense of ``I/Myslef``-there is the sad 18 year-old in the West not quite ready to leave the nest but who must, on the corresponding pressure of that society’s norms.
And if ammah and abba expect to be supported by, and even live with, Munna and his kids in their old age, it is because they would have spent their last penny not on pension funds and Roth IRAs with which to later contribute to environmental destruction in trotting the globe on geriatric tours, but on Munna`s higher education and that bangla for him and his brothers in Gulberg. In any case, the contention that Westerns are not paying for their parents’ upkeep (and in fact, will have their children pay as well) through their taxes, is merely laughable-- unless Mr Shiraz knows of some way by which his present S.S contributions will actually cover the cost of his Medicare and SS cheques in the future!
The sheer selfishness and cruelty, indeed, of the older, Eastern, generations!!
The author writes, ``They say that wherever modernity and prosperity touches its feet `the children question their elders`. The children are rebelling in traditionally Confucian but fast modernizing societies like Thailand and Singapore and Japan. I say that if you wish to modernize and progress then differentiate yourself from your father.``
Perhaps the author has failed to notice that Japan and Singapore had ``modernized and progressed`` more than a generation ago, and that if anything, the present-day rebelliousness of the youth, if true, coincides with downturns in those economies. Whatever the driving forces behind the changing attitudes, and whatever their merits, it is difficult to see how they can be seen as products of the now allowing ‘progress’.
It would be more realistic, though still far from accurate, to see the these attitudinal changes as products of the more recent wave of global capital flux where the values of individualistic get-rich-quick capitalism ride rough-shod over all considerations of tradition and `culture`, in any meaningful sense of that word.
But then this, to the author, is presumably a good thing, because ``[t]he close-knit family encourages physical and sexual abuse of children.[!] The traditional family restricts the child’s individuation. The harm done to our children and our members translates into harm inflicted on our societies. Individuate for your children if you don’t have the courage to do it for yourself.
Ah yes, indeed, if all else fails, invoke the poor, innocent, children. And nothing, of course, works better than throwing in abuse. So much the better if it`s sexual. Much better we just throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. Now if only we were all `individuated` enough to go on to buy two-garage homes like they do in the suburbs of Boston, our children would be so much safer! And our societies so much …cooler!
#40 Posted by soysauce on March 11, 2004 9:30:29 am
Shiraz,
Here`s an example for you: SC Johnson - a family company. Have you heard of them? They make a lot of household, sanitary products and proudly advertise themselves on TV (presumably to the mainstream and not to the ``primitive subcultures``) as a ``family company.`` It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing. I rest my case.
Here`s an example for you: SC Johnson - a family company. Have you heard of them? They make a lot of household, sanitary products and proudly advertise themselves on TV (presumably to the mainstream and not to the ``primitive subcultures``) as a ``family company.`` It`s been in the same family for 4 generations and that`s supposed to be a good thing. I rest my case.
#39 Posted by soysauce on March 10, 2004 1:29:33 pm
#38 solitude
Not kicking you too hard I hope. Kicking you is not my intention anyway.
It`s interesting to see a good writer, an excellent writer even, like you dissembling like this. I never contested that pakistan is corrupt. However, you linked nepotism/favoritism to corruption and so far have failed to substantiate it. When questioned about it, you start citing irrelevant stuff like the map you put up or Transparency International web site. I don`t see that they have used nepotism as a measure of corruption. You made the point & you back it up.
Here`s what you said about the Amish:Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
What is the logical link here? If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in? I note in passing that your definition of a people who do no harm to anyone else and have chosen a way of living on their own and abhor violence as primitive sheds light on your own mindset..
About control of small businesses, how do you expect me to ``back it up?`` I happen to know personally a lot of such companies. If you have no such contact with them, pick up a small business magazine like ``Inc`` or FSB (Forbes Small Business) from your library. They rank small businesses once a year and give a brief history of each one of them and it`s easy to see there that except for the ones that were bought out control stays with the family. Read the business section of the newspaper where they occasionally cover a company. This is not some shattering revelation. Family ownership is not a taboo in the US as you make it out to be. When someone dies, unless there`s a will to the contrary, the estate (that includes the business) passes to the legal heirs. What`s so damn hard to understand about this? Same with control of shares in publicly traded companies. This is how it works the world over, including your personal hellhole of pakistan.
You didn`t really answer the point about what you say are aberrations within the larger society. When does it cease to be an aberration? If you leave out the italians, the chicanos, the rednecks and the evangelical christians (who believe the larger society is sinful) how much is left? If Sicily can taint all of Italy, why can`t these groups as a whole taint america?
Not kicking you too hard I hope. Kicking you is not my intention anyway.
It`s interesting to see a good writer, an excellent writer even, like you dissembling like this. I never contested that pakistan is corrupt. However, you linked nepotism/favoritism to corruption and so far have failed to substantiate it. When questioned about it, you start citing irrelevant stuff like the map you put up or Transparency International web site. I don`t see that they have used nepotism as a measure of corruption. You made the point & you back it up.
Here`s what you said about the Amish:Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
What is the logical link here? If Amish aren`t corrupt how do they fit in? I note in passing that your definition of a people who do no harm to anyone else and have chosen a way of living on their own and abhor violence as primitive sheds light on your own mindset..
About control of small businesses, how do you expect me to ``back it up?`` I happen to know personally a lot of such companies. If you have no such contact with them, pick up a small business magazine like ``Inc`` or FSB (Forbes Small Business) from your library. They rank small businesses once a year and give a brief history of each one of them and it`s easy to see there that except for the ones that were bought out control stays with the family. Read the business section of the newspaper where they occasionally cover a company. This is not some shattering revelation. Family ownership is not a taboo in the US as you make it out to be. When someone dies, unless there`s a will to the contrary, the estate (that includes the business) passes to the legal heirs. What`s so damn hard to understand about this? Same with control of shares in publicly traded companies. This is how it works the world over, including your personal hellhole of pakistan.
You didn`t really answer the point about what you say are aberrations within the larger society. When does it cease to be an aberration? If you leave out the italians, the chicanos, the rednecks and the evangelical christians (who believe the larger society is sinful) how much is left? If Sicily can taint all of Italy, why can`t these groups as a whole taint america?
#38 Posted by solitude on March 10, 2004 10:59:45 am
#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
It is nice to see you are still alive and kicking.
Let me just bring to your attention Transparency International`s Corruption Perception Index :
http://www.transparency.org/
I was referring to the Index compiled in 1999:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/1999/cpi1999.html
``In what way are the Amish corrupt``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I said the Amish are a primitive subculture in America.
``Control of these businesses usually remains within the family``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
Do you have anything to back this claim. If it is true then it is probably reflected in the CPI (after all the US is not perfect).
``Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. `` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
They are LESS corrupt than Pakistan (very much so).
``you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book`` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I cannot possibly cover everything in <1000 word document. I have pointed you out to the websites and books. I cannot regurgitate my entire learning to you - particularly since you don`t ask nicely but adopt a belligerent tone. You asked about southern Italy the best book on corruption in S. Italy is by Banfield (in my opinion).
``Where exactly are you going with all this? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
You sound really upset. You tell me where you think I am going. I state my position in the article quite clearly on the subject of the amoral familism.
``If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged. ``
Please go and ask and learn whatever you can from the website (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com) .
It is good to see that you are interested in these matters.
``as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
As I stated in the article Pakistan has a high standing as a corrupt country because of its primitive values and its rampant practice of nepotism which arises from extremely close relationships between family members (to the point of being unhealthy).
It is nice to see you are still alive and kicking.
Let me just bring to your attention Transparency International`s Corruption Perception Index :
http://www.transparency.org/
I was referring to the Index compiled in 1999:
http://www.transparency.org/cpi/1999/cpi1999.html
``In what way are the Amish corrupt``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I said the Amish are a primitive subculture in America.
``Control of these businesses usually remains within the family``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
Do you have anything to back this claim. If it is true then it is probably reflected in the CPI (after all the US is not perfect).
``Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. `` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
They are LESS corrupt than Pakistan (very much so).
``you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book`` ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
I cannot possibly cover everything in <1000 word document. I have pointed you out to the websites and books. I cannot regurgitate my entire learning to you - particularly since you don`t ask nicely but adopt a belligerent tone. You asked about southern Italy the best book on corruption in S. Italy is by Banfield (in my opinion).
``Where exactly are you going with all this? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
You sound really upset. You tell me where you think I am going. I state my position in the article quite clearly on the subject of the amoral familism.
``If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged. ``
Please go and ask and learn whatever you can from the website (http://www.worldvaluessurvey.com) .
It is good to see that you are interested in these matters.
``as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what? ``#37 by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24pm PT
As I stated in the article Pakistan has a high standing as a corrupt country because of its primitive values and its rampant practice of nepotism which arises from extremely close relationships between family members (to the point of being unhealthy).
#37 Posted by soysauce on March 9, 2004 4:24:58 pm
#36 solitude
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
Huh? In what way are the Amish corrupt or, for that matter, pakistanis in GB?
You keep asserting that nepotism exists only within certain subcultures. That`s plain wrong. Small businesses (<100 employees) together employ the largest number of people in the US. Control of these businesses usually remains within the family. Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. Majority shareholders of publicly traded companies also tend to be family members. They too must be corrupt. Is that hard for you to understand?
Whatever point you wished to make about pakistan, your rationalizations have failed you.
If you were going to make an argument about pakistan alone, then I`d defer to your personal knowledge. But when you start making sweeping statements about whole civilizations to justify your prejudices, you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book! First you rant about Italy as somehow being different from the US. Then you narrow it down to southern italy & if Chicago is beset by the same problems it`s no reflection on the whole of US. Ah, but then the rednecks and the Amish & the 25 million or so born-again christians don`t really count either. Where exactly are you going with all this?
And, what of the map? It`s someone`s opinion of where nations stand. If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged.
Anyway, as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what?
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England).
Huh? In what way are the Amish corrupt or, for that matter, pakistanis in GB?
You keep asserting that nepotism exists only within certain subcultures. That`s plain wrong. Small businesses (<100 employees) together employ the largest number of people in the US. Control of these businesses usually remains within the family. Per your definition then, americans are corrupt. Majority shareholders of publicly traded companies also tend to be family members. They too must be corrupt. Is that hard for you to understand?
Whatever point you wished to make about pakistan, your rationalizations have failed you.
If you were going to make an argument about pakistan alone, then I`d defer to your personal knowledge. But when you start making sweeping statements about whole civilizations to justify your prejudices, you ought to be prepared to say more than go read a book! First you rant about Italy as somehow being different from the US. Then you narrow it down to southern italy & if Chicago is beset by the same problems it`s no reflection on the whole of US. Ah, but then the rednecks and the Amish & the 25 million or so born-again christians don`t really count either. Where exactly are you going with all this?
And, what of the map? It`s someone`s opinion of where nations stand. If the author of that map were to argue that it`s based on some objective measure then he/she deserves to be challenged.
Anyway, as you were saying, before I interrupted you, pakistan must be bad because of what?
#36 Posted by solitude on March 8, 2004 2:15:01 pm
``I established previously that there`s nepotism everywhere contrary to your assertion that only ``primitive`` societies suffer from it``-#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England). I state clearly in the article that primitive societies with amoral family structures suffer the MOST from corruption and nepotism.
As I mentioned earlier if a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and make their sons the CEO does it make America corrupt? or does it make the culture that the Pakistani family comes from, corrupt?
Similarly some people pointed out nepotism in the US on this board. Sure, nepotism exists in some circles everywhere like the Italian mobs in Chicago and NY and the Mexican families (I stated that before) but that is because these primitive sub-cultures practise what most primitive societies engage in : favoritism based on blood relations. Is this so hard to understand ? or do you just like to engage in imagined debates?
``show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism`` -#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
It sounds like nepotism to me. You will have to be specific about the instance you are talking about.
``If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things. ``-#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
Where is this rule written ? Since when did you come up with that? I was going to put up a map with dozens of countries :
You want to ask me about Macedonia now that its mentioned ?
I cannot go into detail about Southern Italy when the article is primarily focused on Pakistan and Muslims. If you have such great interest in it by all means read the book I referred you to. I am sorry if the scope of the article was not clear to you however mentioning examples does not mean you go into sociological details about it. I can elaborate a little more: Southern Italy is notorious as the homeland of the cosa nostra or the Mafia and if you have been there it is very primitive (ancient houses and even older values and family structures, for a fictional social commentary see GodFather series and Malena and tons of other Italian films etc.).
Corruption is a symptom of a primitive society. Primitive societies and subcultures can exist within progressive societies (like the Amish in America or the Pakistani towns in England). I state clearly in the article that primitive societies with amoral family structures suffer the MOST from corruption and nepotism.
As I mentioned earlier if a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and make their sons the CEO does it make America corrupt? or does it make the culture that the Pakistani family comes from, corrupt?
Similarly some people pointed out nepotism in the US on this board. Sure, nepotism exists in some circles everywhere like the Italian mobs in Chicago and NY and the Mexican families (I stated that before) but that is because these primitive sub-cultures practise what most primitive societies engage in : favoritism based on blood relations. Is this so hard to understand ? or do you just like to engage in imagined debates?
``show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism`` -#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
It sounds like nepotism to me. You will have to be specific about the instance you are talking about.
``If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things. ``-#35 by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10pm PT
Where is this rule written ? Since when did you come up with that? I was going to put up a map with dozens of countries :
You want to ask me about Macedonia now that its mentioned ?
I cannot go into detail about Southern Italy when the article is primarily focused on Pakistan and Muslims. If you have such great interest in it by all means read the book I referred you to. I am sorry if the scope of the article was not clear to you however mentioning examples does not mean you go into sociological details about it. I can elaborate a little more: Southern Italy is notorious as the homeland of the cosa nostra or the Mafia and if you have been there it is very primitive (ancient houses and even older values and family structures, for a fictional social commentary see GodFather series and Malena and tons of other Italian films etc.).
#35 Posted by soysauce on March 8, 2004 1:10:03 pm
#34
OK, let`s take your definition. I established previously that there`s nepotism everywhere contrary to your assertion that only ``primitive`` societies suffer from it. You`re welcome to dispute that (since you haven`t done so already) and show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism.
If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things.
OK, let`s take your definition. I established previously that there`s nepotism everywhere contrary to your assertion that only ``primitive`` societies suffer from it. You`re welcome to dispute that (since you haven`t done so already) and show me why control of family businesses passing from parent to child in the US would not be nepotism.
If you wanted to keep your point confined to Pakistan, you should not have mentioned a slew of other countries. You did and you can`t tell others to go read a book to see why you said certain things.
#34 Posted by solitude on March 6, 2004 3:55:49 pm
``If we go by your election criterion, then family businesses everywhere (most US small businesses with less than 100 employees are family-owned and passed down from one generation to the next) are guilty of nepotism and no public business either in the US or in Italy or India or Pak practices nepotism. That`s because an elected board of directors runs the business and appionts the chairman & CEO. ``
The difference between nepotism and election:
Nepotism: You give someone an opportunity not on merit but because you are related to them.
Election: You give someone an opportunity by common vote because you overwhelmingly feel that the candidate is suitable (the voters are NOT necessarily related to the candidate).
I don`t understand what runs for logic in your universe of discourse but I don`t see your point.
People may want to elect you because you have an illustrious lineage or heritage but that is not nepotism. People may support you because you are descended from someone famous , though this is not a good criterion for supporting a person it is still not nepotism nor is it corruption.
``Give me some examples of why you say nepotism is strong in ``primitive`` Italy. Make sure no counter examples exist in the ``advanced`` societies. ``
Go to the library and pick up a book on the subject particularly the one by Edward Banfield (Moral Basis of backwards Society). Forgive me but I am here to discuss Pakistan not Italy.
The difference between nepotism and election:
Nepotism: You give someone an opportunity not on merit but because you are related to them.
Election: You give someone an opportunity by common vote because you overwhelmingly feel that the candidate is suitable (the voters are NOT necessarily related to the candidate).
I don`t understand what runs for logic in your universe of discourse but I don`t see your point.
People may want to elect you because you have an illustrious lineage or heritage but that is not nepotism. People may support you because you are descended from someone famous , though this is not a good criterion for supporting a person it is still not nepotism nor is it corruption.
``Give me some examples of why you say nepotism is strong in ``primitive`` Italy. Make sure no counter examples exist in the ``advanced`` societies. ``
Go to the library and pick up a book on the subject particularly the one by Edward Banfield (Moral Basis of backwards Society). Forgive me but I am here to discuss Pakistan not Italy.
#33 Posted by solitude on March 5, 2004 11:21:24 am
``Now as to your claim that nepotism does not exist in US, lets look at some ``
#27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
Can you tell me where I made such a claim? Nepotism is practised all over the world
to some degree, usually by families from traditional backgrounds.
For e.g. If a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and decides to make their 18 year old son the next ``manager`` of a corner shop they started. Does it mean : that America is riddled with nepotism and therefore it is ok to be corrupt in Pakistan?
You gave the example of the Kennedys. In America there are lots of ``close knit`` mexican, hispanic families but they live in the ghettos. There are many close black families but they live in the projects. There are white families who live in trailers. There are white families who run mafias and have ties to organized crime and they usually have values similar to Muslims. These families come from an impoverished Irish Catholic background (like the Kennedys) or Southern Italian Catholic background. Do the actions of these people make it alright to be corrupt? Does it make us Pakistanis feel better about ourselves? Does it make you feel superior again ? or perhap it makes you feel ``less inferior`` ? Does accusing others of the same crimes ease your consciousness ? If it has , lets move on. If it hasn`t then look at the bottom for a charge by charge response.
The good and the great are confident enough to laugh at themselves, they are brave enough to change their ways no matter how holy the way no matter how old the traditions.
What I brought to your attention was that Pakistan and most of the 3rd world countries are the most corrupt and there is statistical and scientific analysis that directly relates corruption to the lifestyle and views and values of the corrupt. I quoted the World Values Survey http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
So let us (1) bring out examples related to Pakistan (pro and con) (2) identify and understand and take responsibility for the causes (3) change the way we do things no matter the abuse, no matter the resistance, anger or heartbreak.
``He got into Harvard ... Yale because of his daddy `` #27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
There is a legacy factor in admission decisions for the top universities. This is not the same as nepotism or corruption. Bush went to a school (Andover) that is vastly superior to any Karachi Grammar School you can imagine. It is a good thing that schools like Harvard and Yale do not merely look at grades and standardized tests but take the person as a whole into account. It does not make the admissions comm. corrupt. It is very easy to assume nasty scenarios. It is very convenient to imagine Bush Sr. making a ``Sifarish`` to the board but the truth is such imaginings only spring from the minds of people who wish they were equal. You do not become equal by wishing, hoping, imagining conspiracy theories of the Bush family`s corruption.
``He did a half-ass job with his daddy`s money ... business ... bought a baseball team with his daddy`s money``
Bush Jr. did not borrow from his father or take his money. He took from his trust fund. You see this has been my point. In traditional households fathers take $5 out of their pocket and bestow it upon their sons making it seem like they are gods. In modern families the parents ask their children to work hard to earn every penny AND they put money into their children`s portfolio or fund. It then becomes Bush Jr.`s money. I know its a hard concept to grasp for a people who are used to Eidi money which you receive only to have it recycled by your parents. But there it is. Using money from your education trust fund does not make you corrupt, nor borrowing money from parents during hard times make you someone who is corrupt.
Before I go any further,your dislike for Bush does not make America corrupt, it does not make Pakistan less corrupt , it does not make the Bush family corrupt.
If you still feel that Bush was wrong in taking money from his mutual fund porfolio that his parents created for him then you seem to feel the views of Marx who felt all private property should be abolished because property of parents gives undue advantage to the children. If you are a socialist or anti-capitalist who feels the west is evil and corrupt and decadent join the club (also populated by Islamists and communists).
As for the rest, I can go one by one to exagerrate on each item or I can ask you to consider the following, if you feel there is corruption in America you must do something about it not just malign America and excuse Pakistan for America`s shortcomings. There is no point in wasting bile on a predominantly Pakistani board, most of these people already hate America (unless the point was to reinforce that hatred and to give them a justification for their old ways).
p.s. I don`t view this as my board. I appreciate divergent views.
#27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
Can you tell me where I made such a claim? Nepotism is practised all over the world
to some degree, usually by families from traditional backgrounds.
For e.g. If a Pakistani family immigrates to the US and decides to make their 18 year old son the next ``manager`` of a corner shop they started. Does it mean : that America is riddled with nepotism and therefore it is ok to be corrupt in Pakistan?
You gave the example of the Kennedys. In America there are lots of ``close knit`` mexican, hispanic families but they live in the ghettos. There are many close black families but they live in the projects. There are white families who live in trailers. There are white families who run mafias and have ties to organized crime and they usually have values similar to Muslims. These families come from an impoverished Irish Catholic background (like the Kennedys) or Southern Italian Catholic background. Do the actions of these people make it alright to be corrupt? Does it make us Pakistanis feel better about ourselves? Does it make you feel superior again ? or perhap it makes you feel ``less inferior`` ? Does accusing others of the same crimes ease your consciousness ? If it has , lets move on. If it hasn`t then look at the bottom for a charge by charge response.
The good and the great are confident enough to laugh at themselves, they are brave enough to change their ways no matter how holy the way no matter how old the traditions.
What I brought to your attention was that Pakistan and most of the 3rd world countries are the most corrupt and there is statistical and scientific analysis that directly relates corruption to the lifestyle and views and values of the corrupt. I quoted the World Values Survey http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
So let us (1) bring out examples related to Pakistan (pro and con) (2) identify and understand and take responsibility for the causes (3) change the way we do things no matter the abuse, no matter the resistance, anger or heartbreak.
``He got into Harvard ... Yale because of his daddy `` #27 by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46pm PT
There is a legacy factor in admission decisions for the top universities. This is not the same as nepotism or corruption. Bush went to a school (Andover) that is vastly superior to any Karachi Grammar School you can imagine. It is a good thing that schools like Harvard and Yale do not merely look at grades and standardized tests but take the person as a whole into account. It does not make the admissions comm. corrupt. It is very easy to assume nasty scenarios. It is very convenient to imagine Bush Sr. making a ``Sifarish`` to the board but the truth is such imaginings only spring from the minds of people who wish they were equal. You do not become equal by wishing, hoping, imagining conspiracy theories of the Bush family`s corruption.
``He did a half-ass job with his daddy`s money ... business ... bought a baseball team with his daddy`s money``
Bush Jr. did not borrow from his father or take his money. He took from his trust fund. You see this has been my point. In traditional households fathers take $5 out of their pocket and bestow it upon their sons making it seem like they are gods. In modern families the parents ask their children to work hard to earn every penny AND they put money into their children`s portfolio or fund. It then becomes Bush Jr.`s money. I know its a hard concept to grasp for a people who are used to Eidi money which you receive only to have it recycled by your parents. But there it is. Using money from your education trust fund does not make you corrupt, nor borrowing money from parents during hard times make you someone who is corrupt.
Before I go any further,your dislike for Bush does not make America corrupt, it does not make Pakistan less corrupt , it does not make the Bush family corrupt.
If you still feel that Bush was wrong in taking money from his mutual fund porfolio that his parents created for him then you seem to feel the views of Marx who felt all private property should be abolished because property of parents gives undue advantage to the children. If you are a socialist or anti-capitalist who feels the west is evil and corrupt and decadent join the club (also populated by Islamists and communists).
As for the rest, I can go one by one to exagerrate on each item or I can ask you to consider the following, if you feel there is corruption in America you must do something about it not just malign America and excuse Pakistan for America`s shortcomings. There is no point in wasting bile on a predominantly Pakistani board, most of these people already hate America (unless the point was to reinforce that hatred and to give them a justification for their old ways).
p.s. I don`t view this as my board. I appreciate divergent views.
#32 Posted by soysauce on March 5, 2004 11:21:24 am
Attar Shiraz,
Now you`re nitpicking. If we go by your election criterion, then family businesses everywhere (most US small businesses with less than 100 employees are family-owned and passed down from one generation to the next) are guilty of nepotism and no public business either in the US or in Italy or India or Pak practices nepotism. That`s because an elected board of directors runs the business and appionts the chairman & CEO.
Would Benazir have become the prime minister had her father been an ordinary pakistani? Similarly we can say with a lot of certainty that GW Bush would not have been the republican party candidate if he had not been a Bush. There`s a recent book by Kevin Philips on the Bush dynasty. Check it out.
On Disney, Roy Disney, who supposedly resembles Walt Disney, has a loyal following among a large number of shareholders because he is a Disney. He has engendered basically a coup within the company. Why is he so powerful in a publicly owned company?
Give me some examples of why you say nepotism is strong in ``primitive`` Italy. Make sure no counter examples exist in the ``advanced`` societies.
Now you`re nitpicking. If we go by your election criterion, then family businesses everywhere (most US small businesses with less than 100 employees are family-owned and passed down from one generation to the next) are guilty of nepotism and no public business either in the US or in Italy or India or Pak practices nepotism. That`s because an elected board of directors runs the business and appionts the chairman & CEO.
Would Benazir have become the prime minister had her father been an ordinary pakistani? Similarly we can say with a lot of certainty that GW Bush would not have been the republican party candidate if he had not been a Bush. There`s a recent book by Kevin Philips on the Bush dynasty. Check it out.
On Disney, Roy Disney, who supposedly resembles Walt Disney, has a loyal following among a large number of shareholders because he is a Disney. He has engendered basically a coup within the company. Why is he so powerful in a publicly owned company?
Give me some examples of why you say nepotism is strong in ``primitive`` Italy. Make sure no counter examples exist in the ``advanced`` societies.
#31 Posted by ahsanshamim on March 5, 2004 7:15:15 am
Re # 28
ZahraJ:
I like to be direct and dont hedge myself under generalized phrases. You commented `there ought to be success stories along with failure stories.` Understanding and rationalizing your life`s successes and failures and putting failures in name of logical lessons (read irrational lessons) are two different things. The facts stands that you cant undermine the importance of issues through telling that you have failed while practicing. That is pretty individualistic and imposition like this may just give us myopic imagery of wannabes.
About all the examples quoted in article of bribery, nepotism, family clashes can easily be compared with those `traditional incidents` in west as well. One just has to come out of the white skin for that.
Ahsan
ZahraJ:
I like to be direct and dont hedge myself under generalized phrases. You commented `there ought to be success stories along with failure stories.` Understanding and rationalizing your life`s successes and failures and putting failures in name of logical lessons (read irrational lessons) are two different things. The facts stands that you cant undermine the importance of issues through telling that you have failed while practicing. That is pretty individualistic and imposition like this may just give us myopic imagery of wannabes.
About all the examples quoted in article of bribery, nepotism, family clashes can easily be compared with those `traditional incidents` in west as well. One just has to come out of the white skin for that.
Ahsan
#30 Posted by soundmeister on March 5, 2004 1:42:56 am
Dude,
You don`t wanna send money home, don`t. Stop whining.
You don`t wanna send money home, don`t. Stop whining.
#29 Posted by soundmeister on March 5, 2004 1:42:56 am
post#8- satyamvada-
Great stuff. Please don`t waste your time with this illiterate bunch.
Great stuff. Please don`t waste your time with this illiterate bunch.
#28 Posted by malik99 on March 4, 2004 3:46:32 pm
Solitude #26 - Ok, I think I need to jump in here. You claim that Bush`s presidency is not a case of nepotism. I would argue that it is, but at a different level. Let me explain -
He got into Harvard because of his daddy
He got into Yale because of his daddy
He did a half-ass job with his daddy`s money and business in his early years
He bought a baseball team with his daddy`s money
Everything he did until he became texas governer has daddy`s shadow
All of his resume leading upto his presidential election reeks of daddy. Big deal that he won the elections on his own. If it weren`t for his daddy, he would not have the resume to show something to american people. And by the way, these days he is running into some trouble, BECAUSE OF HIS DADDY. Why? well, because of his daddy, he was able to skip his service during vietnam.
Now as to your claim that nepotism does not exist in US, lets look at some ``coincidences``:
- Secretary of State Collin Powel`s son is FCC`s Chairman. coincidence?
- Ex-Senator Dole`s wife was the president of American Red Corss. coincidence?
- V.P. Cheney`s wife Lynn sits on the board of a major defense company. coincidence?
- Ex Governor of NY Mario Cuomo`s son became the housing secratary. coincidence?
- Bush`s brother Neil won a muli-million dollar contract telecommunications contract in Korea. Coincidence?
- Kennedy family`s history is that of nepotism. JFK makes his brother attorney general; JFK`s son who was only known for his looks and not for brains becomes the district attorney of the coveted lower manhattan district; their other cousins and sons are running public service firms with nothing more than their last name to their resume.
- President Bush`s daughters get caught for underage drinking. In normal circumstances they would have to spend a night in jail, and the bar owner who sold them drinks would have his license revoked. Nothing like that happens in this case. And they go off to Yale and Ut Austin respectively, in which they got admissions based because of nepotism.
- Ex President Gore`s father Senator Gore ensures a decent resume for his son to someday run for president.
- Ex White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu manages to give his son enough influential posts back in early 90s that he manages to run for senate`s seat in New Hampshire.
- There are hundreds of cases i can point out where powerful actors and actresses sons and daughters get a shot at acting careers BECAUSE of nepotism.
- Finally, if i were to start pointing out the cases of nepotism in the corporate world in US, I will end-up spending my whole evening writing about it and would still not be done. Just to put a case in point, Rupert Murdoch (the biggest media tycoon in the world) has his 22 year old son running a major section of his empire.
I can assure you that nepotism is alive in well in US. However, just like everything else, its done in a more refined way and with much more impact. In other words, unlike in pakistan, there is no pettiness about nepotism in US.
He got into Harvard because of his daddy
He got into Yale because of his daddy
He did a half-ass job with his daddy`s money and business in his early years
He bought a baseball team with his daddy`s money
Everything he did until he became texas governer has daddy`s shadow
All of his resume leading upto his presidential election reeks of daddy. Big deal that he won the elections on his own. If it weren`t for his daddy, he would not have the resume to show something to american people. And by the way, these days he is running into some trouble, BECAUSE OF HIS DADDY. Why? well, because of his daddy, he was able to skip his service during vietnam.
Now as to your claim that nepotism does not exist in US, lets look at some ``coincidences``:
- Secretary of State Collin Powel`s son is FCC`s Chairman. coincidence?
- Ex-Senator Dole`s wife was the president of American Red Corss. coincidence?
- V.P. Cheney`s wife Lynn sits on the board of a major defense company. coincidence?
- Ex Governor of NY Mario Cuomo`s son became the housing secratary. coincidence?
- Bush`s brother Neil won a muli-million dollar contract telecommunications contract in Korea. Coincidence?
- Kennedy family`s history is that of nepotism. JFK makes his brother attorney general; JFK`s son who was only known for his looks and not for brains becomes the district attorney of the coveted lower manhattan district; their other cousins and sons are running public service firms with nothing more than their last name to their resume.
- President Bush`s daughters get caught for underage drinking. In normal circumstances they would have to spend a night in jail, and the bar owner who sold them drinks would have his license revoked. Nothing like that happens in this case. And they go off to Yale and Ut Austin respectively, in which they got admissions based because of nepotism.
- Ex President Gore`s father Senator Gore ensures a decent resume for his son to someday run for president.
- Ex White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu manages to give his son enough influential posts back in early 90s that he manages to run for senate`s seat in New Hampshire.
- There are hundreds of cases i can point out where powerful actors and actresses sons and daughters get a shot at acting careers BECAUSE of nepotism.
- Finally, if i were to start pointing out the cases of nepotism in the corporate world in US, I will end-up spending my whole evening writing about it and would still not be done. Just to put a case in point, Rupert Murdoch (the biggest media tycoon in the world) has his 22 year old son running a major section of his empire.
I can assure you that nepotism is alive in well in US. However, just like everything else, its done in a more refined way and with much more impact. In other words, unlike in pakistan, there is no pettiness about nepotism in US.
#27 Posted by ZahraJ on March 4, 2004 3:46:32 pm
Before we point figures at anyone we must realize that this board belongs to Shiraz. It`s his article that has provoked us all to come here and exchange our perspectives. Someone commented that this article is capturing the crux of the writer`s own experiences. The fact that the said writer is able to narrate a personal experience in such a fashion that he is able to come up with some lessons learned and suggest others to look into it, is commendable. Also, in life there ought to be success stories along with failure stories. Any fool who comes forth considering all his life stories are full of success stories needs to head out to a shrink. This is because all of us may have different interpretation of success and failure. Lastly, the failure of one person can also be his success.
#26 Posted by solitude on March 4, 2004 2:02:43 pm
[#20 by soysauce on March 3, 2004 6:19pm PT]``Just about everyone - including the most diehard Bush supporter - would agree that GW is president because his daddy was too. ``- soysauce
I am not a Bush supporter (leave alone a ``diehard`` Bush supporter) and I can tell you that GW Bush Jr. did not become president because of his ``daddy``. Would GW Bush Jr. have become President if his father had not been involved in politics? Its possible. Just like Abe Lincoln, a simple man from Illinois became president, so too can any American born. How is it possible? You stand in front of the American people and you ask them to elect you.
Look up the definition of Nepotism ``favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship`` (Etymology: French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nepote nephew, from Latin nepot-, nepos grandson, nephew)
Now to your example. Bush Jr`s Presidency is not a case of Bush Sr. going to the white house and saying, I used to work here now its my son`s turn. Bush Jr. was elected because he ran for office and won fair and square (ultra -left wing socialists liberals and the sore Islamists will disagree).
Bush`s election is different from Nawaz Sharif giving his brothers government contracts. This is different from making your 12 year old son become head of a the Baata Shoe Store because he is your son and needs experience.
Did Bush Jr. learn how to become a successful politician and President and speaker from his father? Yes. Did Bush Jr. benefit from the political environment that was created in his house because his father was President. Yes he did. Did Bush Jr. know many influential people before he became President. Yes he did. But those influential people did not elect him to the Presidency it was the people of America. They may have advised him, coached him, tutored him but when it came to the acing the test he went there and won the hearts of the American people on his own.
Is this much clearer to you ? Nepotism vs. election to presidency? or do I have to elaborate? Do you still think that Pakistanis should engage in nepotism and corruption because Bush Jr.`s father was a President? Do you still think that America is as primitive as Pakistan? Hope this is logical enough - now take some milk with that sauce and neutralize that acidity.
As for your example on Disney etc. I hope you read the news and know what you are talking about because I don`t know what it is you are trying to say. Would you like to read the news and give me a proper example? Perhaps you may want to retract it or give me more information (that perhaps only you are privy to). Maybe you thought that you could do well to squeeze in another pseudo-understood example to support your argument in favor of primitive and traditional family structures?
Do you feel guilty that you were elected to a position because of family ties? Maybe you wish you had? Does your family make you feel good about yourself? Do they make you feel like you are 2nd class or not worthy of your fairer skinned cousins? Maybe they pay extra attention to you because they feel you will have an inferiority? complex ? Our traditional families have a lot to learn about fairness and justice and living by merit.
Our feudalistic pre capitalistic society must evolve or it will perish.
p.s. Thanks Zahra for your kind words. Ignorance is no excuse for tyranny.
I am not a Bush supporter (leave alone a ``diehard`` Bush supporter) and I can tell you that GW Bush Jr. did not become president because of his ``daddy``. Would GW Bush Jr. have become President if his father had not been involved in politics? Its possible. Just like Abe Lincoln, a simple man from Illinois became president, so too can any American born. How is it possible? You stand in front of the American people and you ask them to elect you.
Look up the definition of Nepotism ``favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship`` (Etymology: French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nepote nephew, from Latin nepot-, nepos grandson, nephew)
Now to your example. Bush Jr`s Presidency is not a case of Bush Sr. going to the white house and saying, I used to work here now its my son`s turn. Bush Jr. was elected because he ran for office and won fair and square (ultra -left wing socialists liberals and the sore Islamists will disagree).
Bush`s election is different from Nawaz Sharif giving his brothers government contracts. This is different from making your 12 year old son become head of a the Baata Shoe Store because he is your son and needs experience.
Did Bush Jr. learn how to become a successful politician and President and speaker from his father? Yes. Did Bush Jr. benefit from the political environment that was created in his house because his father was President. Yes he did. Did Bush Jr. know many influential people before he became President. Yes he did. But those influential people did not elect him to the Presidency it was the people of America. They may have advised him, coached him, tutored him but when it came to the acing the test he went there and won the hearts of the American people on his own.
Is this much clearer to you ? Nepotism vs. election to presidency? or do I have to elaborate? Do you still think that Pakistanis should engage in nepotism and corruption because Bush Jr.`s father was a President? Do you still think that America is as primitive as Pakistan? Hope this is logical enough - now take some milk with that sauce and neutralize that acidity.
As for your example on Disney etc. I hope you read the news and know what you are talking about because I don`t know what it is you are trying to say. Would you like to read the news and give me a proper example? Perhaps you may want to retract it or give me more information (that perhaps only you are privy to). Maybe you thought that you could do well to squeeze in another pseudo-understood example to support your argument in favor of primitive and traditional family structures?
Do you feel guilty that you were elected to a position because of family ties? Maybe you wish you had? Does your family make you feel good about yourself? Do they make you feel like you are 2nd class or not worthy of your fairer skinned cousins? Maybe they pay extra attention to you because they feel you will have an inferiority? complex ? Our traditional families have a lot to learn about fairness and justice and living by merit.
Our feudalistic pre capitalistic society must evolve or it will perish.
p.s. Thanks Zahra for your kind words. Ignorance is no excuse for tyranny.
#25 Posted by soysauce on March 4, 2004 11:32:10 am
#23 zahraj
I think you should direct your advice at Shiraz first.
I think you should direct your advice at Shiraz first.
#24 Posted by ahsanshamim on March 3, 2004 11:24:10 pm
With no intents to molest anyone, I feel people here are flaying their own failure stories in the holy name of logic.
Ahsan
Ahsan
#23 Posted by ZahraJ on March 3, 2004 8:42:50 pm
[Dear fellow Pakistanis, take your money and invest in your IRA accounts and your mutual funds and your assets. ENSURE your future first , then get ready to produce children. Plan for the children you will have (don`t just keep producing children one by one every year till the woman who bears them has to walk with her legs apart). BEFORE you have these children start college funds for them and start ensuring THEIR future.
That is how parents in civilized societies work. ]
I completely agree with your above suggestions. But we need to keep in mind that not everyone is into financial planning and not everyone has the desire to look into 401k, 529, or any IRAs. To top it all, in Pakistani Societies since most of the times the sons live with their parents therefore it`s also the parents who get a hit.
That is how parents in civilized societies work. ]
I completely agree with your above suggestions. But we need to keep in mind that not everyone is into financial planning and not everyone has the desire to look into 401k, 529, or any IRAs. To top it all, in Pakistani Societies since most of the times the sons live with their parents therefore it`s also the parents who get a hit.
#22 Posted by ZahraJ on March 3, 2004 8:42:50 pm
Soysauce:
Please avoid personal attacks on the writer.
He is very good at sharing his perspectives when he is in his flow.
By attacking him personally, you disrupt that flow.
It`s just that certain unique writers have to be read and handled in a unique manner.
Just my two heavenly cents.
Note: It`s certainly your prerogative to proceed how you want to.
Please avoid personal attacks on the writer.
He is very good at sharing his perspectives when he is in his flow.
By attacking him personally, you disrupt that flow.
It`s just that certain unique writers have to be read and handled in a unique manner.
Just my two heavenly cents.
Note: It`s certainly your prerogative to proceed how you want to.
#21 Posted by ZahraJ on March 3, 2004 7:18:46 pm
Dear Shiraz,
Thank you for an interesting read. Your articles always bring up interesting and unique perspectives. Your articles are mostly engaging reads (whether I agree with them or not is another thing) It`s just like the reader and writer are in a conversational mode. This was some feedback on the overall ambience that you have successfully created by publishing this piece.
Your response to Farhan was hilarious. As I sat down to collect my thoughts for an online class, I just stumbled on your sweetly composed response to Farhan. It was very well written and was quite amusing. It seemed that you are trying to wake up the sleepy ones. By the way, it will be real nice to hear from those on Chowk who have grown up kids. As a writer, probably you should ask them to come forward. You see leadery has its own demands :)
Farhan,
Thank you for providing the reader with a very well composed post. It was an engaging post and had valid points.
Thank you for an interesting read. Your articles always bring up interesting and unique perspectives. Your articles are mostly engaging reads (whether I agree with them or not is another thing) It`s just like the reader and writer are in a conversational mode. This was some feedback on the overall ambience that you have successfully created by publishing this piece.
Your response to Farhan was hilarious. As I sat down to collect my thoughts for an online class, I just stumbled on your sweetly composed response to Farhan. It was very well written and was quite amusing. It seemed that you are trying to wake up the sleepy ones. By the way, it will be real nice to hear from those on Chowk who have grown up kids. As a writer, probably you should ask them to come forward. You see leadery has its own demands :)
Farhan,
Thank you for providing the reader with a very well composed post. It was an engaging post and had valid points.
#20 Posted by soysauce on March 3, 2004 6:19:22 pm
Shiraz,
You`re being obstinate like a mule, defensive and plain silly.
You claimed that nepotism exists only in ``primitive`` societies. Just about everyone - including the most diehard Bush supporter - would agree that GW is president because his daddy was too. His daddy`s connections are the ones that have seen him through every stage of his life from his business ventures to running for governor of texas to the president. I also cited the case of CEOs making their children & relatives bigwigs in companies. There`s a Disney fighting to take back Walt Disney Co even as we speak.
For your theory to be right, america must be a primitive society.
Can you argue without making wild accusations? I think you`re a good writer but a bad logician who writes wild and silly things. Why don`t you stick to writing stories? Flailing at your past isn`t going to help you in the present unless it is some sort of therapy for you..
You`re being obstinate like a mule, defensive and plain silly.
You claimed that nepotism exists only in ``primitive`` societies. Just about everyone - including the most diehard Bush supporter - would agree that GW is president because his daddy was too. His daddy`s connections are the ones that have seen him through every stage of his life from his business ventures to running for governor of texas to the president. I also cited the case of CEOs making their children & relatives bigwigs in companies. There`s a Disney fighting to take back Walt Disney Co even as we speak.
For your theory to be right, america must be a primitive society.
Can you argue without making wild accusations? I think you`re a good writer but a bad logician who writes wild and silly things. Why don`t you stick to writing stories? Flailing at your past isn`t going to help you in the present unless it is some sort of therapy for you..
#19 Posted by solitude on March 3, 2004 6:19:21 pm
I take such great pride in Pakistanis!
Whenever I try to say something and others feel that I have not done an adequate job I always have someone come back with examples to help the argument I am trying to make. Sometimes they come up with counter arguments or their feelings are hurt which makes me realize that I ought to do a better job of explaining myself. I love you all so much!
All of you guys are awesome! Thanks Nazeer for your examples about music and the strong desire amongst Pakistanis to be obedient and to please our elders. It is very human to want to please your parents. I am not advocating hating your parents or your family. I am advocating that all of us grow on our own & ask our families to allow us to be free of the straight jacket that they impose on our personal growth. The most efficient method of control is financial control. If you take money away from a woman you take her ability to function in society independently.
If families and parents try to limit your mobility and your power by draining your money supply or by making demands on it then you have every right to speak up and ask them to have some self-pride,
``Dear parents, you always asked me to stand up on my own two feet, but why can`t you stand up on your two feet?``
At this point parents might go into ``Oh we sold our jewelry to get you educated`` or ``Oh we had to eat onions so you can go to college``. At this point you must ask them, why? Why did you suffer ? So you can finally leach on me ? So you can drain my blood in the prime of my youth ? I am NOT a savings account! I am not some IRA ! I am not some investment. I am a human being! right?
Imagine if a stranger came to you and said, ``Look I will feed you and put cloths on your back but when you grow up you must feed me and put cloths on my back in turn``. So this stranger feeds you for 18 years or so and then when you go to college, you got an RA-ship, you work 2 jobs and you graduate early. Then you start earning and you see that without getting married you already have a child to take care of. You start paying for this stranger for the next 40-50 years until their death! Is this fair ?
NO!!
It should be doubly unfair if your parents strike such a deal with you. Why? Because you didn`t ask to be brought into this world, your parents helped bring you into this world. It is their responsibility to feed you and clothe you and give you the best they can give. They are not doing you a ``favor`` by clothing you and feeding you. After all the harm Muslim parents do to children by mutilating genitals without adult consent, by brainwashing children in the ways and religions of the third world and then feeding and clothing the child in their own 3rd world way they OWE it to you to ATLEAST give you the basic necessities of life.
I know some of you are afraid. Some of you think ``I would have been nothing if my parents had not educated me or fed me I would have died on the streets, so I better make this deal with them because I will be a better person``. I assure you are wrong if you think this way. This is what our oppressive society has brainwashed you with (and some parents engage in saying this as well). You would have been MORE than what you are now IF your parents or society make you feel this way. Have you heard of the orphans who work hard and make it on their own in this world? They become great successes like the hero of Great Expectations or any of the other poor lost souls of Charles Dickens` novels. You say, but this is only in novels, I say have FAITH in yourselves!
My grandfather retired at the age of 47 because my father was supporting the ENTIRE family (his father`s 9-10 children AND the children of his brothers). Only I and my mother know the stress and the pains and pressure my father was always under. He always used to say ``If I didn`t have so many balls and chains pulling at me I would have been something!``.
Dear fellow Pakistanis, take your money and invest in your IRA accounts and your mutual funds and your assets. ENSURE your future first , then get ready to produce children. Plan for the children you will have (don`t just keep producing children one by one every year till the woman who bears them has to walk with her legs apart). BEFORE you have these children start college funds for them and start ensuring THEIR future.
That is how parents in civilized societies work.
In Pakistan you are always under pressure from the poverty you see around you. Then you get cable or tv and you see how people really live and desire spreads its wings in your heart (unless some Mullah wishes to censor your tv set).
Your parents seeing your ambitions say ``study hard`` or ``join my Paan shop!`` and we will be ok- family is good! The moment you are seen as growing in strength or financial power they marry your sheltered-arse to some cousin and you start breeding children. You are always under pressure with NO time to think! no time to think about your future and how life can be better than the way it is!
Take a stand, take your time! work hard and study hard and do it for yourself and more importantly take time to think about your betterment! surround yourself with people who love you unconditionally and who encourage you unconditionally.
Only when one gets rewards for one`s actions does the desire to succeed prosper. If you tax the person or levy fines then the desire to work harder and be more productive lessens. Until you become a hollow of a man without any hope and you become cynical and sarcastic and fatalistic! That is no life. Break the fetters of the sib! Break these chains! Break them so you can realize YOUR dreams not the dreams of some cult or some family or some country or some religious party or some leader.
Whenever I try to say something and others feel that I have not done an adequate job I always have someone come back with examples to help the argument I am trying to make. Sometimes they come up with counter arguments or their feelings are hurt which makes me realize that I ought to do a better job of explaining myself. I love you all so much!
All of you guys are awesome! Thanks Nazeer for your examples about music and the strong desire amongst Pakistanis to be obedient and to please our elders. It is very human to want to please your parents. I am not advocating hating your parents or your family. I am advocating that all of us grow on our own & ask our families to allow us to be free of the straight jacket that they impose on our personal growth. The most efficient method of control is financial control. If you take money away from a woman you take her ability to function in society independently.
If families and parents try to limit your mobility and your power by draining your money supply or by making demands on it then you have every right to speak up and ask them to have some self-pride,
``Dear parents, you always asked me to stand up on my own two feet, but why can`t you stand up on your two feet?``
At this point parents might go into ``Oh we sold our jewelry to get you educated`` or ``Oh we had to eat onions so you can go to college``. At this point you must ask them, why? Why did you suffer ? So you can finally leach on me ? So you can drain my blood in the prime of my youth ? I am NOT a savings account! I am not some IRA ! I am not some investment. I am a human being! right?
Imagine if a stranger came to you and said, ``Look I will feed you and put cloths on your back but when you grow up you must feed me and put cloths on my back in turn``. So this stranger feeds you for 18 years or so and then when you go to college, you got an RA-ship, you work 2 jobs and you graduate early. Then you start earning and you see that without getting married you already have a child to take care of. You start paying for this stranger for the next 40-50 years until their death! Is this fair ?
NO!!
It should be doubly unfair if your parents strike such a deal with you. Why? Because you didn`t ask to be brought into this world, your parents helped bring you into this world. It is their responsibility to feed you and clothe you and give you the best they can give. They are not doing you a ``favor`` by clothing you and feeding you. After all the harm Muslim parents do to children by mutilating genitals without adult consent, by brainwashing children in the ways and religions of the third world and then feeding and clothing the child in their own 3rd world way they OWE it to you to ATLEAST give you the basic necessities of life.
I know some of you are afraid. Some of you think ``I would have been nothing if my parents had not educated me or fed me I would have died on the streets, so I better make this deal with them because I will be a better person``. I assure you are wrong if you think this way. This is what our oppressive society has brainwashed you with (and some parents engage in saying this as well). You would have been MORE than what you are now IF your parents or society make you feel this way. Have you heard of the orphans who work hard and make it on their own in this world? They become great successes like the hero of Great Expectations or any of the other poor lost souls of Charles Dickens` novels. You say, but this is only in novels, I say have FAITH in yourselves!
My grandfather retired at the age of 47 because my father was supporting the ENTIRE family (his father`s 9-10 children AND the children of his brothers). Only I and my mother know the stress and the pains and pressure my father was always under. He always used to say ``If I didn`t have so many balls and chains pulling at me I would have been something!``.
Dear fellow Pakistanis, take your money and invest in your IRA accounts and your mutual funds and your assets. ENSURE your future first , then get ready to produce children. Plan for the children you will have (don`t just keep producing children one by one every year till the woman who bears them has to walk with her legs apart). BEFORE you have these children start college funds for them and start ensuring THEIR future.
That is how parents in civilized societies work.
In Pakistan you are always under pressure from the poverty you see around you. Then you get cable or tv and you see how people really live and desire spreads its wings in your heart (unless some Mullah wishes to censor your tv set).
Your parents seeing your ambitions say ``study hard`` or ``join my Paan shop!`` and we will be ok- family is good! The moment you are seen as growing in strength or financial power they marry your sheltered-arse to some cousin and you start breeding children. You are always under pressure with NO time to think! no time to think about your future and how life can be better than the way it is!
Take a stand, take your time! work hard and study hard and do it for yourself and more importantly take time to think about your betterment! surround yourself with people who love you unconditionally and who encourage you unconditionally.
Only when one gets rewards for one`s actions does the desire to succeed prosper. If you tax the person or levy fines then the desire to work harder and be more productive lessens. Until you become a hollow of a man without any hope and you become cynical and sarcastic and fatalistic! That is no life. Break the fetters of the sib! Break these chains! Break them so you can realize YOUR dreams not the dreams of some cult or some family or some country or some religious party or some leader.
#18 Posted by solitude on March 3, 2004 6:19:21 pm
``Please stay out of enforcing your point with statistically flawed analogies `` #17 by FarhanNazeer on March 3, 2004 1:55pm PT
Thanks Nazeer for your kind comments. What statistically flawed analogies are you referring to? Everything mentioned in the article can be checked and rechecked against reliable and published sources! Can you please be more specific? I didn`t include references because I didn`t want to make the article inaccessible or too academic.
``It shouldn`t be a restriction to growing yourself and becoming an individual. That results from an overbearing family, not necessarily a close knit one. `` #15 by experienceitall on March 3, 2004 8:46am PT
Look at the proponents of close families:
- Mexicans
- Italians (southern Italy, the most impoverished, mafia ridden, drug ridden, desolate mud hut populated area of Europe)
- Albanians/ Montengro (known as Mogadishu of Europe, the most lawless, downtrodden backwater where people still don`t use toothpaste or toothbrushes)
- Muslims (from the worst most impoverished / orthodox backgrounds - MAYBE the newly
rich Saudis who still have memories of eating banana peels thrown by pilgrims to Mecca).
- Primitive , traumatized , insecure societies facing extinction like the Greeks (anyone remember seeing My big fat greek wedding? does anyone want to be like the Greeks? I didn`t think so) other insecure societies facing extinction are the zoroastrians (parsis), memons, some jewish groups (these are the orthodox jews who live on state subsidies and have 15 children in tow, you might see them in the ghettos of America) etc.
- Black Americans (the minority that is the defacto bottom of it all!)
- Primitive African societies
Look at those who are not so incestuous about families:
- Northern Europe (England, Scandinavia, Dutch, Northern Germany etc.)
- Protestant America (the wealthiest most educated most mobile population).
Look at the societies in transition where individuality is slowly taking hold :
- the four asian tigers (thai, taiwan, hong kong, japan)
Think about this, which company would you prefer?
It all begins from the individual.
Thanks Nazeer for your kind comments. What statistically flawed analogies are you referring to? Everything mentioned in the article can be checked and rechecked against reliable and published sources! Can you please be more specific? I didn`t include references because I didn`t want to make the article inaccessible or too academic.
``It shouldn`t be a restriction to growing yourself and becoming an individual. That results from an overbearing family, not necessarily a close knit one. `` #15 by experienceitall on March 3, 2004 8:46am PT
Look at the proponents of close families:
- Mexicans
- Italians (southern Italy, the most impoverished, mafia ridden, drug ridden, desolate mud hut populated area of Europe)
- Albanians/ Montengro (known as Mogadishu of Europe, the most lawless, downtrodden backwater where people still don`t use toothpaste or toothbrushes)
- Muslims (from the worst most impoverished / orthodox backgrounds - MAYBE the newly
rich Saudis who still have memories of eating banana peels thrown by pilgrims to Mecca).
- Primitive , traumatized , insecure societies facing extinction like the Greeks (anyone remember seeing My big fat greek wedding? does anyone want to be like the Greeks? I didn`t think so) other insecure societies facing extinction are the zoroastrians (parsis), memons, some jewish groups (these are the orthodox jews who live on state subsidies and have 15 children in tow, you might see them in the ghettos of America) etc.
- Black Americans (the minority that is the defacto bottom of it all!)
- Primitive African societies
Look at those who are not so incestuous about families:
- Northern Europe (England, Scandinavia, Dutch, Northern Germany etc.)
- Protestant America (the wealthiest most educated most mobile population).
Look at the societies in transition where individuality is slowly taking hold :
- the four asian tigers (thai, taiwan, hong kong, japan)
Think about this, which company would you prefer?
It all begins from the individual.
#17 Posted by FarhanNazeer on March 3, 2004 1:55:45 pm
Dear Shiraz:
The first step towards change is to accept that our current system is flawed. Muslims in general, and Pakistanis in particular, have a hard time accepting their mistakes and admitting their flaws. That is why they are so rigid against change. We have closed our eyes to the deep darkness of our current status on the global platform, and have resorted to conveniently assigning blame on the zionists and non-believers. We can not move forward by even an inch unless we first don`t honestly admit to ourselves that our own lack of strategic thinking, flawed and abusive societal approach, missing productive action element, and in many cases, ignorance and silence is the true reason for the destruction of our society.
I commend you for bringing up a very sensitive topic that is bound to get you some criticism from the apostles of morality. While your weak attempts to develop some econmoic relationships to your point were uncomfortably illiogical and statistically flawed, the basic point that you have raised is striking. I find it hard to believe that even the intelligensia in Pakistan, and some extremely bright Pakistanis living outside of Pakistan, dismiss the whole open issue of the organized abuse of the elders in our society, using power as their weapon when the kids are dependent, and guilt as their weapon when we are independent and in a position to bring change. You hit it right on the head that with such an approach, we can never develop, and only survive (at best). Youth is our biggest asset, and a good part of that already deprived youth ends up burning its energies and resources in pleasing the older generation.
The brain-wash is far more deep-rooted than the mafia psyche. Look at all our movies. There is always a daadi-amman in the family who noboby listens to, but she is always right. The ending always shows that the daadi-amman was right in everything she said from the very beginning. Even our advertisements often show an older character being worshipped and pleased by the young ones. Like a teenage girl trying to prove to her naani amman how she can cook perfect parathas like she used to. I personally know some quite intelligent young friends, who during their senstive early teens, got into Saigal and Bade Ghulam Ali to please their parents and get their attention, and are still listening to those songs, completely missing out on the ``feel`` of their time. A guy who listens to Mukesh is by default considered to have a superior character than the one who listens to Sting. We all have our own identities that we can associate ourselves with. The Pakistani identity, the Indian identity, the Chinese identity, the American identity and so on. But there is one common identity that we share globally. It`s the identity of our time. The 80s, the 90s, the 2000s. The Pakistani youth, through years of brain-wash, has lost that identity, and is lost in the world of missing the good old days of Amanat Ali Khan`s Insha-Jee Utho, and the culture and tehzeeb of the 50s and 60s.
Parents are considered to be great because of their unconditional love. Unconditional? Look around and you`ll see for yourself. Their expectations much higher than the just expectations of a newly wed bride! This ``return-on-investment`` thinking of theirs is natural for humans, and that is why, they should not be considered as Gods. Neither should they be treated as Gods. They make mistakes and poor decisions like all of us do, and they should deal with the consequences of their decisions. I could ramble on and on on the need to change this abuse in our society, but the bottom line is that we all have to collectively just admit that the abuse exists and that this ``return-of-favor`` approach needs to come to an end.
Thanks for bringing this obvious but often ignored topic, Arthur. Our generation has taken enough damage of the brain-wash for us to get out of our shackles, but we have to do everything that we can to make sure that our coming generations have the independence of thought and decision that they deserve and desire. This tyrannical abuse of the old has to end.
Good luck with your endeavors,
Farhan
P.S. You are very good at making your point. Just one suggestion. Please stay out of enforcing your point with statistically flawed analogies and relationships that you believe are valid for your argument. If you do find them necessary to include, make sure you qualify your assertions with some blanket statements or disclaimers. For most readers, a flawed analogy is a good enough reason to assume that the main point being made is flawed, which is obviously not the deal in your case.
The first step towards change is to accept that our current system is flawed. Muslims in general, and Pakistanis in particular, have a hard time accepting their mistakes and admitting their flaws. That is why they are so rigid against change. We have closed our eyes to the deep darkness of our current status on the global platform, and have resorted to conveniently assigning blame on the zionists and non-believers. We can not move forward by even an inch unless we first don`t honestly admit to ourselves that our own lack of strategic thinking, flawed and abusive societal approach, missing productive action element, and in many cases, ignorance and silence is the true reason for the destruction of our society.
I commend you for bringing up a very sensitive topic that is bound to get you some criticism from the apostles of morality. While your weak attempts to develop some econmoic relationships to your point were uncomfortably illiogical and statistically flawed, the basic point that you have raised is striking. I find it hard to believe that even the intelligensia in Pakistan, and some extremely bright Pakistanis living outside of Pakistan, dismiss the whole open issue of the organized abuse of the elders in our society, using power as their weapon when the kids are dependent, and guilt as their weapon when we are independent and in a position to bring change. You hit it right on the head that with such an approach, we can never develop, and only survive (at best). Youth is our biggest asset, and a good part of that already deprived youth ends up burning its energies and resources in pleasing the older generation.
The brain-wash is far more deep-rooted than the mafia psyche. Look at all our movies. There is always a daadi-amman in the family who noboby listens to, but she is always right. The ending always shows that the daadi-amman was right in everything she said from the very beginning. Even our advertisements often show an older character being worshipped and pleased by the young ones. Like a teenage girl trying to prove to her naani amman how she can cook perfect parathas like she used to. I personally know some quite intelligent young friends, who during their senstive early teens, got into Saigal and Bade Ghulam Ali to please their parents and get their attention, and are still listening to those songs, completely missing out on the ``feel`` of their time. A guy who listens to Mukesh is by default considered to have a superior character than the one who listens to Sting. We all have our own identities that we can associate ourselves with. The Pakistani identity, the Indian identity, the Chinese identity, the American identity and so on. But there is one common identity that we share globally. It`s the identity of our time. The 80s, the 90s, the 2000s. The Pakistani youth, through years of brain-wash, has lost that identity, and is lost in the world of missing the good old days of Amanat Ali Khan`s Insha-Jee Utho, and the culture and tehzeeb of the 50s and 60s.
Parents are considered to be great because of their unconditional love. Unconditional? Look around and you`ll see for yourself. Their expectations much higher than the just expectations of a newly wed bride! This ``return-on-investment`` thinking of theirs is natural for humans, and that is why, they should not be considered as Gods. Neither should they be treated as Gods. They make mistakes and poor decisions like all of us do, and they should deal with the consequences of their decisions. I could ramble on and on on the need to change this abuse in our society, but the bottom line is that we all have to collectively just admit that the abuse exists and that this ``return-of-favor`` approach needs to come to an end.
Thanks for bringing this obvious but often ignored topic, Arthur. Our generation has taken enough damage of the brain-wash for us to get out of our shackles, but we have to do everything that we can to make sure that our coming generations have the independence of thought and decision that they deserve and desire. This tyrannical abuse of the old has to end.
Good luck with your endeavors,
Farhan
P.S. You are very good at making your point. Just one suggestion. Please stay out of enforcing your point with statistically flawed analogies and relationships that you believe are valid for your argument. If you do find them necessary to include, make sure you qualify your assertions with some blanket statements or disclaimers. For most readers, a flawed analogy is a good enough reason to assume that the main point being made is flawed, which is obviously not the deal in your case.
#16 Posted by solitude on March 3, 2004 1:09:57 pm
#12 by r.a.janjua on March 3, 2004 0:39am PT
A personal attack of such intensity and such intimacy is un called for. Could this be a deep seated insecurity of yours? Could this be a projection on your part? Remember attacks come when you cannot come up with a rational argument of your own. How about an argument then? I am sure you can say something better than hurl bitter accusations of being an unloved child?
#10 by moulabux on March 2, 2004 10:22pm PT
The poor fellow tried to bring attention to rampant child abuse in Pakistan and you start speculating on how his parents ought to have beaten him up? Or ought not to have beaten him up? Physical abuse of children is prescribed in our religion where the Prophet Mohammad urges parents to beat children above 9 who forget their prayers. Such abuse is incongruent with the child rearing skills of the modern parent. But then we are talking about a third world country here. Strangely Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular feel superior to the developed countries of the world merely because the civilized world doesn`t follow the same religion (Islam). It would be tragic if it was not ridiculously funny. There is hope however that people like you can actually find it funny and joke about our weaknesses and our flaws. Don`t let it get to you. Keep on moving against tyranny until the Jahils from the 6th century begin to wish they were with their creator.
#13 by M.B.Z.Isphahani on March 3, 2004 8:27am PT
You claim to have invented things in your brief bio , but its hard to follow what you are writing since you seem to also have gone ahead and invented another language. What are you writing about? My dear fellow if you are really 64 years old you may want to give the following a try: give your grandchildren a hug and beg forgiveness of your own children for trying to follow the ways of Gengis Khan (a person you apparently admire). Don`t you know Genghis Khan was a ruthless barbarian infidel who heaped mountains of skulls of the Momineen? It never amazes me when I hear a ``pakka`` Musalman talk about his love for Hitler or Genghis Khan or Osama Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussain or Zia Ul Haq. For a person who claims to be creative please try to think outside the box when it comes to social issues. It does not mean you make psychopaths and psychotic people as ``the person who influenced me the most``. Quoting Hitler and Genghis Khan ought to be an example of what NOT to do.
#11 by soysauce on March 2, 2004 10:22pm PT
Dear Mr./ Ms. Sauce, as much as Islamists hate George Bush for once again sticking it to the terrorists he did not make it to the Presidency because of nepotism or family ties.
But I have a feeling that my saying it will not influence your opinion. You may continue to wallow in your paranoia of the Jewish conspiracy and the Satanic west and the evil US etc. but think for a moment that most perhaps, maybe, (is it not possible) that Pakistanis may want more than a job at Office Max or McDonalds?
I realize its hard for you to think of anything beyond a corner grocery store (and if that is not possible then the next logical step for Muslims ought to be :the ENTIRE earth should become part of the Islamic Empire!) but I feel most Pakistanis would like to get jobs BEYOND the local office supply store. Most Pakistanis wish to be evaluated based on their own merit. They don`t wish to get a job through ``sifarish``, nor through ``pawwa``, nor through ``my uncle is financing my green card by giving me job at 7 Eleven``. Most Pakistanis feel in my opinion that networking is different from nepotism (look it up in the urdu-english dictionary). Another attempt at ``melding`` meanings and justifying nepotism.
By implying that Bush became President because of his father - you are taking justification of nepotism to new heights! Why? If Bush and his family can (allegedly) do it so can Pakistanis! Again this entire scenario is just playing in your head and is totally disconnected with reality.
To to try to glorify nepotism and to try to twist the meanings of words is now an Islamic pastime. For example according to Islamists the suicide bombers are NOT terrorists, Bush is a terrorist! It is ``freedom`` to live the live of a Muslim woman but it is ``slavery`` to live the life of a western woman! I realize these Islamists love to take words into new realms of meanings, twisting them around and then hurling it back onto the utterer. It can get so ridiculous that a point comes where if someone were to say ``AlQaeda is a terrorist organization``, the Islamist`s translating machinery will kick into action and immediately scream ``NO!! US is a terrorist organization, Allahuakbar!`` and if someone were to say ``AlQaeda is an Islamic organization`` the Islamist interpreter would immediately respond ``NO!! USA is an Islamic organization! Allahuakbar!``.
This is a reflection of the desperation with which you are trying to hold onto the old system. Make life easier for yourself and those around you.
A personal attack of such intensity and such intimacy is un called for. Could this be a deep seated insecurity of yours? Could this be a projection on your part? Remember attacks come when you cannot come up with a rational argument of your own. How about an argument then? I am sure you can say something better than hurl bitter accusations of being an unloved child?
#10 by moulabux on March 2, 2004 10:22pm PT
The poor fellow tried to bring attention to rampant child abuse in Pakistan and you start speculating on how his parents ought to have beaten him up? Or ought not to have beaten him up? Physical abuse of children is prescribed in our religion where the Prophet Mohammad urges parents to beat children above 9 who forget their prayers. Such abuse is incongruent with the child rearing skills of the modern parent. But then we are talking about a third world country here. Strangely Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular feel superior to the developed countries of the world merely because the civilized world doesn`t follow the same religion (Islam). It would be tragic if it was not ridiculously funny. There is hope however that people like you can actually find it funny and joke about our weaknesses and our flaws. Don`t let it get to you. Keep on moving against tyranny until the Jahils from the 6th century begin to wish they were with their creator.
#13 by M.B.Z.Isphahani on March 3, 2004 8:27am PT
You claim to have invented things in your brief bio , but its hard to follow what you are writing since you seem to also have gone ahead and invented another language. What are you writing about? My dear fellow if you are really 64 years old you may want to give the following a try: give your grandchildren a hug and beg forgiveness of your own children for trying to follow the ways of Gengis Khan (a person you apparently admire). Don`t you know Genghis Khan was a ruthless barbarian infidel who heaped mountains of skulls of the Momineen? It never amazes me when I hear a ``pakka`` Musalman talk about his love for Hitler or Genghis Khan or Osama Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussain or Zia Ul Haq. For a person who claims to be creative please try to think outside the box when it comes to social issues. It does not mean you make psychopaths and psychotic people as ``the person who influenced me the most``. Quoting Hitler and Genghis Khan ought to be an example of what NOT to do.
#11 by soysauce on March 2, 2004 10:22pm PT
Dear Mr./ Ms. Sauce, as much as Islamists hate George Bush for once again sticking it to the terrorists he did not make it to the Presidency because of nepotism or family ties.
But I have a feeling that my saying it will not influence your opinion. You may continue to wallow in your paranoia of the Jewish conspiracy and the Satanic west and the evil US etc. but think for a moment that most perhaps, maybe, (is it not possible) that Pakistanis may want more than a job at Office Max or McDonalds?
I realize its hard for you to think of anything beyond a corner grocery store (and if that is not possible then the next logical step for Muslims ought to be :the ENTIRE earth should become part of the Islamic Empire!) but I feel most Pakistanis would like to get jobs BEYOND the local office supply store. Most Pakistanis wish to be evaluated based on their own merit. They don`t wish to get a job through ``sifarish``, nor through ``pawwa``, nor through ``my uncle is financing my green card by giving me job at 7 Eleven``. Most Pakistanis feel in my opinion that networking is different from nepotism (look it up in the urdu-english dictionary). Another attempt at ``melding`` meanings and justifying nepotism.
By implying that Bush became President because of his father - you are taking justification of nepotism to new heights! Why? If Bush and his family can (allegedly) do it so can Pakistanis! Again this entire scenario is just playing in your head and is totally disconnected with reality.
To to try to glorify nepotism and to try to twist the meanings of words is now an Islamic pastime. For example according to Islamists the suicide bombers are NOT terrorists, Bush is a terrorist! It is ``freedom`` to live the live of a Muslim woman but it is ``slavery`` to live the life of a western woman! I realize these Islamists love to take words into new realms of meanings, twisting them around and then hurling it back onto the utterer. It can get so ridiculous that a point comes where if someone were to say ``AlQaeda is a terrorist organization``, the Islamist`s translating machinery will kick into action and immediately scream ``NO!! US is a terrorist organization, Allahuakbar!`` and if someone were to say ``AlQaeda is an Islamic organization`` the Islamist interpreter would immediately respond ``NO!! USA is an Islamic organization! Allahuakbar!``.
This is a reflection of the desperation with which you are trying to hold onto the old system. Make life easier for yourself and those around you.
#15 Posted by experienceitall on March 3, 2004 8:46:31 am
Interesting article. However, who do you criticise to about your country and religion? Being a Pakistani, I know that we are very good at criticising everyone under the sun; putting constructive criticism to work is where we lack. We talk bad about the government while we don`t pay our taxes. All this doesn`t really result from a close family; you`re talking about abuse, critically analyzing you country and religion among other things and blaming it all on a close knit family system. That`s a bit extreme. Even if you have a close knit family system, it should help in getting honest critical advice. It shouldn`t be a restriction to growing yourself and becoming an individual. That results from an overbearing family, not necessarily a close knit one.
#14 Posted by M.B.Z.Isphahani on March 3, 2004 8:27:01 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#13 Posted by malik99 on March 3, 2004 8:27:01 am
moulabux #10 - No I was not the victim of ``spare the rod; spoil the child`` philosophy. However, for us to turn a blind eye on this irrational social evil which afflicts ``other`` people`s children would be obscenely irresponsible. We tirelessly parrot the mantra that ``children are our future``, yet we destroy this future when we use rod as a mode of progress in child.
And yes I agree with you that this parental abuse issue will remain unresolved for a long time to come, however this does not absolve us of our responsibility to do something about it right now.
Each young parent needs to ask this question before employing extreme forms of discipline on their children: ``Am I doing this to make my child a better person, or am I doing this because my own life sucks and this is the only way I know how to take the frustration of my own failures out?``
And yes I agree with you that this parental abuse issue will remain unresolved for a long time to come, however this does not absolve us of our responsibility to do something about it right now.
Each young parent needs to ask this question before employing extreme forms of discipline on their children: ``Am I doing this to make my child a better person, or am I doing this because my own life sucks and this is the only way I know how to take the frustration of my own failures out?``
#12 Posted by r.a.janjua on March 3, 2004 12:39:04 am
poor excuses to justify the great dissapointment you must be to your parents.
#11 Posted by soysauce on March 2, 2004 10:22:27 pm
Pretty shoddy economic analysis.
First off your argument correlating value systems & economic strength is rather weak. Secondly, how do you think George Bush got where he is today? What of the numerous CEOs who hire their offsprings to succeed them?
I was at an Officemax store yesterday. Except for the sales people, the rest of them, the floor manager, the guy in the office and a few other administrative types were all desis. How could this be? My guess is it`s friends putting in a word for each other when a poistion opens up. Maybe the capitalists at Officemax corporation don`t have quite your wisdom when it comes to hiring what sort of people they should be hiring.
First off your argument correlating value systems & economic strength is rather weak. Secondly, how do you think George Bush got where he is today? What of the numerous CEOs who hire their offsprings to succeed them?
I was at an Officemax store yesterday. Except for the sales people, the rest of them, the floor manager, the guy in the office and a few other administrative types were all desis. How could this be? My guess is it`s friends putting in a word for each other when a poistion opens up. Maybe the capitalists at Officemax corporation don`t have quite your wisdom when it comes to hiring what sort of people they should be hiring.
#10 Posted by moulabux on March 2, 2004 10:22:26 pm
The author has addressed one of the more traditional aspects of our culture, and such an effort deserves praise. Yet, he has allowed his subjective reality to influence the article, taking much of the sting out of it. No matter how individualistic one becomes, especially after doses of Ayn Rand, there are certain filial obligations that have their roots not in traditions, but in love. Therefore, one cannot be completely absolved of this income tax. Neither am I advocating the depositing of the paycheck in your parents account, but there needs to be a balance, the elusive balance which has eluded our society since god knows when.
malik99,
Were you the victim of ``spare the rod; spoil the child`` philosophy? Hah. That is the case in most families, though, and any sort of refusal on part of the child is tantamount to rebellion. Then the rod enters the equation, and the child lives in perpetual fear of the rod, and becomes a sod. And rest assured, the parental abuse issue will remain unresolved for a long time to come, as it cannot possibly be abolished from our culture, but maybe curbed, if the right steps are taken.
Not that it would make much of a difference. Laws were never our nations top priority.
Cheers.
malik99,
Were you the victim of ``spare the rod; spoil the child`` philosophy? Hah. That is the case in most families, though, and any sort of refusal on part of the child is tantamount to rebellion. Then the rod enters the equation, and the child lives in perpetual fear of the rod, and becomes a sod. And rest assured, the parental abuse issue will remain unresolved for a long time to come, as it cannot possibly be abolished from our culture, but maybe curbed, if the right steps are taken.
Not that it would make much of a difference. Laws were never our nations top priority.
Cheers.
#9 Posted by solitude on March 2, 2004 2:31:53 pm
To Those who have decided to take upon themselves the burden of individuality, congratulations !
Do not change yourself. TRANSFORM yourself! Yes you will make mistakes but life is about making mistakes. Don`t forget to learn from them because the smart always acknowledge their mistakes and are smart enough to identify the better method and act upon it. It is the stupid and the insane who continue to do the same things again and again and again , just like they used to do in the 6th century!
Thank you all for bringing your concerns and interpretations. I am really happy that you liked it.
As for #8 :
Hernando-De-What? vs. Francis Fukuyama ?
Your economist`s assertions are unclear. You want to make a law banning hiring of cousins?
Is there such a law in any of the developed countries of the world? No. Do they need this law? No. Why don`t they need this law? Because they have a different value system.
What should we do? Should we introduce another law? Don`t treat the symptoms, come up with a cure. Cure Pakistan of the feudal- religious tyranny by tackling the almost incestuous familial houshold of Pakistanis.
Do not change yourself. TRANSFORM yourself! Yes you will make mistakes but life is about making mistakes. Don`t forget to learn from them because the smart always acknowledge their mistakes and are smart enough to identify the better method and act upon it. It is the stupid and the insane who continue to do the same things again and again and again , just like they used to do in the 6th century!
Thank you all for bringing your concerns and interpretations. I am really happy that you liked it.
As for #8 :
Hernando-De-What? vs. Francis Fukuyama ?
Your economist`s assertions are unclear. You want to make a law banning hiring of cousins?
Is there such a law in any of the developed countries of the world? No. Do they need this law? No. Why don`t they need this law? Because they have a different value system.
What should we do? Should we introduce another law? Don`t treat the symptoms, come up with a cure. Cure Pakistan of the feudal- religious tyranny by tackling the almost incestuous familial houshold of Pakistanis.
#8 Posted by satyamvada on March 2, 2004 9:44:39 am
This article is based on very false premises. It has mistaken correlation with causation.
You should read the work of the famous economist Hernando De Soto to understand this
problem.
The reason Scandinanavian countries are less corrupt is because - of strong personal property rights and legal identity which is transferrable.
In societies which do not have such property rights, there is more ``corruption``.
ALso, In most of the developing societies, laws are not geared towards how the local culture operates - that is why there is more ``corruption``.
Corruption is basically an ``unofficial`` system which comes about because the cost of doing business legally is rendered high because of outdated laws and lack of transparency in property rights.
Francis Fukuyama had claimed that somehow ``Protestant`` societies have more trust and this they are better than the rest. All that is crap - the reason they have trust is because of a strong and transparent property rights system with a legal system to enforce it.
So, dont believe the crap that ``families -bad`` and ``individual-good`` - be skeptical of theories that pronounce that one kind of normative-behavior is better than the other.
The author A.Shiraz has naively fallen for superficial theorizing without thinking through
the implications.
#7 Posted by Hussain on March 2, 2004 9:43:48 am
In third world countries, like Pakistan, the most common complaint is ``Rishwat`` (bribery) and ``Sifarish`` (also known as ``pawwa``) otherwise known as nepotism. Believe it or not out of about 6,000 high officials more than 4,000 are brothers, nephews, nieces, and in-laws of CSP officers. ......
This is something which i have been coming across since i was born ..and people like you who write about it talk about it ...(no offence) ...but people should try to change themselves ...and i think its better not to make any blunt statements like that (although it might be true), but without any substantial backing ...anyways a coherent and informative article for my trivial knowledge ..;P
This is something which i have been coming across since i was born ..and people like you who write about it talk about it ...(no offence) ...but people should try to change themselves ...and i think its better not to make any blunt statements like that (although it might be true), but without any substantial backing ...anyways a coherent and informative article for my trivial knowledge ..;P
#6 Posted by malik99 on March 2, 2004 9:43:48 am
This well written article brings into light one of the taboo subjects in our society: the physical absue of children by parents in the name of instilling ``discipline``.
While growing up in Pakistan in 80s, i was well aware of the physical beatings of children that took place in my neighborhood. These beatings were as `light` as a slap on face, to as much as repeatedly hitting a child with some object (for example a shoe) for an extended period of time. The premise of this `tashadad` was that these beatings would make a better person out of child. This abuse was usually the result of some indiscretion the child did - perhaps he did not do well in school; did not do what he was asked to do; indulged in something he should not have; or had shown some disobedient tendency.
I once confronted a mother who was hitting her child. Her response was that she is mother and she knows how best to raise her child. That left me wondering how this child will grow up and still respect this devilish woman who feels she has the right to beat by the virtue of her being the mother.
OUr soceity accepts and condones this physical abuse because of the wrong and unhealthy emphasis it puts on the ``respect to parents``. There is little or no help available to helpless victims who as a result of abuse grow up shy, reserved, and often with crushed personalities.
In this ``obedience oriented`` society we fail to understand that like all other human beings, parents also have their own interests to take care of. They perhaps beat the child who is not a good student because they want him to study hard and become a doctor. However they do that not just with child`s interest in their mind but their own as well. How envious the neighbours would be of them when they have a son who is a prosperous doctor ! So they beat their son out of their inner fear that one day they might be known as parents of a failure son, while neighbors or other relatives sons will be driving new cars and making their parents proud.
There needs to be more awareness about this social ill. There also need to be laws to punish parents who are found guilty of this evil practice. Our religious leaders should talk about this issue in friday sermons.
Most of all, parents should learn this simple lesson that if a child should pay for his mistakes and shortcomings by getting beaten, then parents should also get this treatment when they themselves make a mistake. If beatings can correct a child, they can certainly correct a parent too.
While growing up in Pakistan in 80s, i was well aware of the physical beatings of children that took place in my neighborhood. These beatings were as `light` as a slap on face, to as much as repeatedly hitting a child with some object (for example a shoe) for an extended period of time. The premise of this `tashadad` was that these beatings would make a better person out of child. This abuse was usually the result of some indiscretion the child did - perhaps he did not do well in school; did not do what he was asked to do; indulged in something he should not have; or had shown some disobedient tendency.
I once confronted a mother who was hitting her child. Her response was that she is mother and she knows how best to raise her child. That left me wondering how this child will grow up and still respect this devilish woman who feels she has the right to beat by the virtue of her being the mother.
OUr soceity accepts and condones this physical abuse because of the wrong and unhealthy emphasis it puts on the ``respect to parents``. There is little or no help available to helpless victims who as a result of abuse grow up shy, reserved, and often with crushed personalities.
In this ``obedience oriented`` society we fail to understand that like all other human beings, parents also have their own interests to take care of. They perhaps beat the child who is not a good student because they want him to study hard and become a doctor. However they do that not just with child`s interest in their mind but their own as well. How envious the neighbours would be of them when they have a son who is a prosperous doctor ! So they beat their son out of their inner fear that one day they might be known as parents of a failure son, while neighbors or other relatives sons will be driving new cars and making their parents proud.
There needs to be more awareness about this social ill. There also need to be laws to punish parents who are found guilty of this evil practice. Our religious leaders should talk about this issue in friday sermons.
Most of all, parents should learn this simple lesson that if a child should pay for his mistakes and shortcomings by getting beaten, then parents should also get this treatment when they themselves make a mistake. If beatings can correct a child, they can certainly correct a parent too.
#5 Posted by kaurasach on March 2, 2004 9:43:48 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#4 Posted by SugarBaap on March 2, 2004 7:45:23 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#3 Posted by aina on March 2, 2004 7:45:23 am
Really, i was astonished after studying this article.I must say to write on such a critical subject , sometimes may create a negative response for your thinking..Indeed , it was a very positive approach on such kind of a topic about which our typical society even not dare to think.A line of this article that gave me an appeal is `` unqulified respect for elders``.It raised a simple question in my mind that should an evil character or corrupt father or flirt mother be respected and obeyed by their children in the way as our society and morals teach us?
Moreover, we shoud not leave our parents in nursing houses in their old age but parents should realize that their children are not an automatic money machine in which you would insert a credit card and then would soon get money.I am agreed with A.shiraz that our parents should left this orthodoxy that their chlid would pay back all of their money which they had spent on him. Dont prepare your children like a cheque for your old age.PARENTS ought to be selfless especially for their children.
Moreover, we shoud not leave our parents in nursing houses in their old age but parents should realize that their children are not an automatic money machine in which you would insert a credit card and then would soon get money.I am agreed with A.shiraz that our parents should left this orthodoxy that their chlid would pay back all of their money which they had spent on him. Dont prepare your children like a cheque for your old age.PARENTS ought to be selfless especially for their children.
#2 Posted by kaurasach on March 2, 2004 7:45:23 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#1 Posted by tainted on March 2, 2004 3:51:58 am
Individuality is not an admirable virtue. Who cares if we all stifle to death?
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- Quarter No.5 Nadeem Akram
- What's In a Name? Aziz Akhmad
- Aamir - A Film Review Dost Mittar
- Local Liberal Dribble Nadeem F Paracha
- The Lucifer Effect Yasir Abbasi
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- quin: Re: # 2 MatloobZaman, Thank... Honor Killings in Babakot
- quin: Honour killings and women... There is no ‘honour’
- tahmed32: #47 hamidm: sigh..re-read #27.... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: tahmed, .... are these judges... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 45 faruk mian, ....... Why Zardari Should Be
- hamidm2: Re: # 48 allah mian, ...... US Commando Strike in
- wiseguyin: Re: # 30 [[[ ...if... US Commando Strike in
- wiseguyin: Re: # 47 [[[ #40... US Commando Strike in
