Whenever we go to Europe for a vacation, the issue of bottled water comes up. When one asks for water in a restaurant, the invariable question the waiter asks is, “with gas or without?” There is no mention of tap water in his query.
Invariably, we divide ourselves in two groups. One group thinks that it is OK to order one of the two types of bottled waters. The other, its members sticking to their rights as customers, and having previously learned what tap water is called in the local language, makes a go for the option not offered. Argument usually ensues between these two groups about the merits of the two approaches.
The tap water group argues that it is better for the ecology---and that is a perfectly valid reason. The other reason, although not stated clearly, is that the bottled water costs money, the tap water is generally free. One can not argue with that either.
The arguments against ordering tap water are fuzzier but equally compelling, at least to me.
The first is that it is the custom of the country and we should obey. People in these countries do not consider it safe or civil to drink tap water, as we do in the US. As an examlpe, when the Western visitors go to India, they are expected to follow the local customs, however indignant they may be about them. For example, they would be expected to remove their shoes in a temple, no matter how filthy the floor is. The same logic applies here.
The second reason is closely associated---and that has to do with pride. I am an American and perfectly comfortable with the western ways. While I am proud of my Indian heritage, I believe that there are better ways of displaying it than sticking like a sore thumb in a restaurant. I do not want to give the waiter an opportunity to make faces at me, saying to himself, “Here comes another cheap Indian.” It is a matter of pride for me.
Needless to say, I usually end up losing the argument when the group consists entirely of Indians. How can one argue against ecology and saving money? And what is this “custom of the country” and “pride” bit?
May be I think differently. May be there are others like me who think of ecology and money not as sacred cows that can not be touched, but as elements of tradeoffs one makes in the overall context of the situation. It is OK to spend a bit more than necessary, and purchasing a bottle of water (generally of recyclable glass not plastic) on occasions is not going to destroy the eco system.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Forty years and counting
I arrived in the US in the August of 1970. That means I have been here now for forty years---a personal landmark for me to look back and reflect.
This was not the way it was meant to be.
I had come to MIT for graduate studies. After finishing my doctorate, I had started applying for jobs in India. By the time the last summer of my stay came rolling by, I already had three offers in hand. I could have become a lecturer at IIT Bombay, an assistant professor at BITS in Pilani, or a scientist at the Indian Space Research Organization in Trivendrum, at a princely salary of about Rs.1000 per month.
Then came a fateful meeting with a friend of one of my cousins. I met this gentleman, a senior executive of an Indian firm that represented Digital Equipment in India, at the Howard Johnson motel in Concord. In about an hour he managed to convince me that I should at least get some work experience in US (and earn some money) before heading home.
That one and half year work experience under a “Practical Training” program led me to apply for Green Card, along with a promise to myself that this stay in this foreign country will last only for a few years…ten at the most.
Then came marriage and children. Ten became twenty. The idea of going back faded, as did the notion of what is “back”---back where? This was home now.
In doing this, I became one of the statistics---that representing brain drain from poorer countries. Instead of paying back to my country of birth and the fine education it had provided, I was helping a rich country become richer and in the process becoming prosperous myself. I did not get to spend much time with my family in India, and started drifting away from a network of friends I had left behind.
Forty years. Much lost….but much gained. Probably gained more than lost.
I can rattle off the usual benefits of living in the West----good living, material prosperity, few hassles, and raising children in a land of opportunity. However, to me an equally important aspect, if not more, is the opportunity for personal development this has provided. Living in a country like US gives you an opportunity to gain a global outlook, widen the scope of experiences you can have, and vastly increase the potential to learn. Being neither an Indian nor an American in the strict sense allows you to become both or, if you wish, a global citizen, equally at home in any part of the world.
Come to think of it, that is not a bad trade-off.
This was not the way it was meant to be.
I had come to MIT for graduate studies. After finishing my doctorate, I had started applying for jobs in India. By the time the last summer of my stay came rolling by, I already had three offers in hand. I could have become a lecturer at IIT Bombay, an assistant professor at BITS in Pilani, or a scientist at the Indian Space Research Organization in Trivendrum, at a princely salary of about Rs.1000 per month.
Then came a fateful meeting with a friend of one of my cousins. I met this gentleman, a senior executive of an Indian firm that represented Digital Equipment in India, at the Howard Johnson motel in Concord. In about an hour he managed to convince me that I should at least get some work experience in US (and earn some money) before heading home.
That one and half year work experience under a “Practical Training” program led me to apply for Green Card, along with a promise to myself that this stay in this foreign country will last only for a few years…ten at the most.
Then came marriage and children. Ten became twenty. The idea of going back faded, as did the notion of what is “back”---back where? This was home now.
In doing this, I became one of the statistics---that representing brain drain from poorer countries. Instead of paying back to my country of birth and the fine education it had provided, I was helping a rich country become richer and in the process becoming prosperous myself. I did not get to spend much time with my family in India, and started drifting away from a network of friends I had left behind.
Forty years. Much lost….but much gained. Probably gained more than lost.
I can rattle off the usual benefits of living in the West----good living, material prosperity, few hassles, and raising children in a land of opportunity. However, to me an equally important aspect, if not more, is the opportunity for personal development this has provided. Living in a country like US gives you an opportunity to gain a global outlook, widen the scope of experiences you can have, and vastly increase the potential to learn. Being neither an Indian nor an American in the strict sense allows you to become both or, if you wish, a global citizen, equally at home in any part of the world.
Come to think of it, that is not a bad trade-off.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Overcommunicating
Aren’t these great times?
Facebook now allows me to connect on a daily basis with previously long lost friends and relatives. Blogs provide me with a soap box over which I can stand and provide my point of view on any topic I feel like. With my cell phone, and sensible pricing schemes, calling anyone in the world from anywhere has become a synch. Typing in a few words of SMS is now an impulsive and instantaneous activity. Broadcast emails with extensive mailing lists allow me to reach out to lots of people with my thoughts, opinions, and ideas.
For someone like me who gets kicks out of carrying out meaningful conversations with a diverse set of people, these are indeed wonderful developments.
However, I now realize that there are other types of people around in the world---those who are not much into communicating. These are the people who never respond to a broadcast email. They are your friends on Facebook, but they remain invisible. They are the ones who do not pick up the phone on the other hand---the caller ID having revealed that it is you who is calling.
To some extent, I see their point. In most cases it is us who have imposed ourselves on their quiet nook. We can not expect them to behave the same way as us or have the same needs. They have enough things going on in their lives that these overcommunicating activities play a secondary role. Or they just prefer to be left alone, either because of inherent shyness or fear that their communicating skills are not good.
They do not rejoice the availability of these multiple channels. They have no need share what they feel at any moment, their views on Sarah Palin, or what they did over the weekend. They probably think we are too pushy, self absorbed, and opinionated.
We need to respect their wishes. We need to stop being annoyed if they do not respond to our broadcast emails or do not participate in a hot discussion.
However, I feel that the behavior adjustment has to take place on both sides. The undercommunicators need to observe some level of courtesy in their dealings with people like us. A direct email (not a broadcast one) needs to be responded, the phone needs to be picked up. There are ways of expressing your desire that you don’t want to be bothered without being so obvious.
If these adjustments are not made, I am afraid that some relationships are going to end up being weakened, or even wrecked, as a result of these tools instead of getting strengthened.
Facebook now allows me to connect on a daily basis with previously long lost friends and relatives. Blogs provide me with a soap box over which I can stand and provide my point of view on any topic I feel like. With my cell phone, and sensible pricing schemes, calling anyone in the world from anywhere has become a synch. Typing in a few words of SMS is now an impulsive and instantaneous activity. Broadcast emails with extensive mailing lists allow me to reach out to lots of people with my thoughts, opinions, and ideas.
For someone like me who gets kicks out of carrying out meaningful conversations with a diverse set of people, these are indeed wonderful developments.
However, I now realize that there are other types of people around in the world---those who are not much into communicating. These are the people who never respond to a broadcast email. They are your friends on Facebook, but they remain invisible. They are the ones who do not pick up the phone on the other hand---the caller ID having revealed that it is you who is calling.
To some extent, I see their point. In most cases it is us who have imposed ourselves on their quiet nook. We can not expect them to behave the same way as us or have the same needs. They have enough things going on in their lives that these overcommunicating activities play a secondary role. Or they just prefer to be left alone, either because of inherent shyness or fear that their communicating skills are not good.
They do not rejoice the availability of these multiple channels. They have no need share what they feel at any moment, their views on Sarah Palin, or what they did over the weekend. They probably think we are too pushy, self absorbed, and opinionated.
We need to respect their wishes. We need to stop being annoyed if they do not respond to our broadcast emails or do not participate in a hot discussion.
However, I feel that the behavior adjustment has to take place on both sides. The undercommunicators need to observe some level of courtesy in their dealings with people like us. A direct email (not a broadcast one) needs to be responded, the phone needs to be picked up. There are ways of expressing your desire that you don’t want to be bothered without being so obvious.
If these adjustments are not made, I am afraid that some relationships are going to end up being weakened, or even wrecked, as a result of these tools instead of getting strengthened.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Karma and emails
In the beginning there were Nigerians. They perfected the art form of sending spam emails to millions of people enticing them to untold rewards, if only they would give out their bank accounts and deposit instructions. The emails generally are like this: “I am Mr. Obutu. I met your relative who gave me your name. Well, he died and I need to give his $10,000,000 to you...” Believe it or not, there were people who fell for the scam, and some Nigerians became quite rich.
I don’t get such emails any more. I guess my name has now been removed from most of the Nigerian mailing lists.
However, I do get lots of emails originating in India. The latest one told me that on June 21st I would see two suns in the sky, because a star called Aderoid (yes, that is the name) will be so close to earth that it would be as bright as the sun. I suppose the person who sent it believed in it and thought of alerting me to this amazing event lest I miss out.
This is just one example of many such emails I receive. Most are a collection of photographs, with elevator music playing in the background. The photographs are quite beautiful, actually, but they are the same ones repackaged countless times. The messages that accompany the pictures have to deal with pithy advice such as being nice to cats and other living things, because God loves you. Some others are threats---telling me that bad things will happen to me if I do not find 20 suckers to forward this email describing the power of God such and such (remember India has thousands of them).
Unlike the Nigerians, the Indians have developed a very sophisticated production and distribution system. Volunteer distributors, ‘nodes’ for those familiar with network jargon, are created and the message spreads virally. These emails come to me from people I trust----my friends and family members, not Mr. Obutu. So I open them, at least most of the time. The originator packages an email (where does he find the raw material?) and sends it out to a handful of initial fire starters. Then it goes in the Internet Ocean of volunteers who are keen to educate and entertain the world.
So, how do people become volunteer ‘nodes’? I receive my daily quota from several volunteers, and if you meet anyone of them, you would not suspect him/her to be a part of such an elaborate network. Nice, ordinary people. So, were they approached by someone in the middle of the night and asked to become a node or did they get an epiphany that this is what they should be doing? Also, how do they get their quota of messages of the day? Do they get them from anonymous sources every morning--like packets of information arriving at an Internet node--- ready to be forwarded to the next destination?
Of course, the big question is why such messages are created and spread around? Unlike the Nigerians, no one is getting rich. Yes, some of them spread the word of God, and so could be construed as a modern channel created by some religious zealots, but why would anyone send an email about two suns?
These are the mysteries of India and the answer perhaps lies in the belief that you need to do what is in your Karma. The email distributors have determined that this is their Karma. The Indian philosophy further states that you should not expect fruits for your labor. So now everything makes sense. It also leads me to believe that such an email factory and distribution system will continue to exist only in India. The Nigerians will have nothing to do with it.
I don’t get such emails any more. I guess my name has now been removed from most of the Nigerian mailing lists.
However, I do get lots of emails originating in India. The latest one told me that on June 21st I would see two suns in the sky, because a star called Aderoid (yes, that is the name) will be so close to earth that it would be as bright as the sun. I suppose the person who sent it believed in it and thought of alerting me to this amazing event lest I miss out.
This is just one example of many such emails I receive. Most are a collection of photographs, with elevator music playing in the background. The photographs are quite beautiful, actually, but they are the same ones repackaged countless times. The messages that accompany the pictures have to deal with pithy advice such as being nice to cats and other living things, because God loves you. Some others are threats---telling me that bad things will happen to me if I do not find 20 suckers to forward this email describing the power of God such and such (remember India has thousands of them).
Unlike the Nigerians, the Indians have developed a very sophisticated production and distribution system. Volunteer distributors, ‘nodes’ for those familiar with network jargon, are created and the message spreads virally. These emails come to me from people I trust----my friends and family members, not Mr. Obutu. So I open them, at least most of the time. The originator packages an email (where does he find the raw material?) and sends it out to a handful of initial fire starters. Then it goes in the Internet Ocean of volunteers who are keen to educate and entertain the world.
So, how do people become volunteer ‘nodes’? I receive my daily quota from several volunteers, and if you meet anyone of them, you would not suspect him/her to be a part of such an elaborate network. Nice, ordinary people. So, were they approached by someone in the middle of the night and asked to become a node or did they get an epiphany that this is what they should be doing? Also, how do they get their quota of messages of the day? Do they get them from anonymous sources every morning--like packets of information arriving at an Internet node--- ready to be forwarded to the next destination?
Of course, the big question is why such messages are created and spread around? Unlike the Nigerians, no one is getting rich. Yes, some of them spread the word of God, and so could be construed as a modern channel created by some religious zealots, but why would anyone send an email about two suns?
These are the mysteries of India and the answer perhaps lies in the belief that you need to do what is in your Karma. The email distributors have determined that this is their Karma. The Indian philosophy further states that you should not expect fruits for your labor. So now everything makes sense. It also leads me to believe that such an email factory and distribution system will continue to exist only in India. The Nigerians will have nothing to do with it.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Walk for Hunger
Early in May, we participated in a fund raising 20 mile walk, called “Walk for Hunger,” which raises money for the hungry people in Boston. Some 43,000 people walked and over $4 million were raised.
Fund raising by volunteers is an American phenomenon. For a cause they believe in, a large number of volunteers undertake an activity to get money from others. This greatly leverages limited resources a charity has and, in addition, gets the society at large involved, instead of just a few rich philanthropists. That makes a lot of sense.
However, for those not from here, the idea of this voluntary activity being physically so challenging may seem strange. Why would a charity make volunteers subject themselves to “torture” instead of just making phone calls?
I think it is brilliant variation of the theme because of several reasons. Let me take this Walk for Hunger as an example.
When I first started participating in this event, the folks at “Project Bread”—the charity responsible for the Walk—told us that 20 miles represented what an average poor person in a poor country walks as he/she forages for food. If that is so, this walk would make me realize how difficult it is for a poor person to fill his belly, and make me empathetic to this cause instead of just being sympathetic. An empathetic volunteer is a good volunteer.
There is also a deeper reason for raising money in this manner. The fact that you are subjecting yourself to a difficult experience gives you a higher moral authority while asking for money than just volunteering your time to make a few phone calls. It is harder for you friend, relative, co-worker or whoever to turn you down.
Finally, the beauty of this fund raising method is how it enrolls the younger generation. When I looked around at the other walkers, I was struck by the demographics. Most of the hoard of walkers surrounding---and by passing me--- were younger than 20! For them, this event provided a perfect opportunity to spend a nice spring day with their friends and family members, chatting, singing, joking, screaming, and cursing along the way. There were mini-groups of white, black, and oriental kids---many wearing T-shirts describing their affiliations. They were having fun and their elders were perfectly happy to have their kids learn the deeper meaning of giving while doing so. What a great way to bring in grass roots support from the youth and making sure that the activity never goes out of existence?
This is a sustainable, robust method for raising money for a good cause, and represents a great innovation from USA that the world should emulate.
Fund raising by volunteers is an American phenomenon. For a cause they believe in, a large number of volunteers undertake an activity to get money from others. This greatly leverages limited resources a charity has and, in addition, gets the society at large involved, instead of just a few rich philanthropists. That makes a lot of sense.
However, for those not from here, the idea of this voluntary activity being physically so challenging may seem strange. Why would a charity make volunteers subject themselves to “torture” instead of just making phone calls?
I think it is brilliant variation of the theme because of several reasons. Let me take this Walk for Hunger as an example.
When I first started participating in this event, the folks at “Project Bread”—the charity responsible for the Walk—told us that 20 miles represented what an average poor person in a poor country walks as he/she forages for food. If that is so, this walk would make me realize how difficult it is for a poor person to fill his belly, and make me empathetic to this cause instead of just being sympathetic. An empathetic volunteer is a good volunteer.
There is also a deeper reason for raising money in this manner. The fact that you are subjecting yourself to a difficult experience gives you a higher moral authority while asking for money than just volunteering your time to make a few phone calls. It is harder for you friend, relative, co-worker or whoever to turn you down.
Finally, the beauty of this fund raising method is how it enrolls the younger generation. When I looked around at the other walkers, I was struck by the demographics. Most of the hoard of walkers surrounding---and by passing me--- were younger than 20! For them, this event provided a perfect opportunity to spend a nice spring day with their friends and family members, chatting, singing, joking, screaming, and cursing along the way. There were mini-groups of white, black, and oriental kids---many wearing T-shirts describing their affiliations. They were having fun and their elders were perfectly happy to have their kids learn the deeper meaning of giving while doing so. What a great way to bring in grass roots support from the youth and making sure that the activity never goes out of existence?
This is a sustainable, robust method for raising money for a good cause, and represents a great innovation from USA that the world should emulate.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Flashing your teeth
Some of the recent digital cameras have a smile feature. That means that the camera will take a picture only if the subject is smiling. This smile has to be of the type that exposes your teeth. Otherwise the camera assumes that you are not worth taking a picture of and refuses to fire.
For a person like me who generally does not flash his teeth while posing for a picture this creates a problem. Either learn to flash, or be ignored by the stupid camera…in effect become a persona non grata. How insulting is this! Outrageous!
How did it come to pass that you have to bare all your teeth for a smile? When did the curving-your-lips-upward stop becoming a legitimate smile?
It can not be genetic. Apes, our closest genetic cousins, flash their teeth only when they are ready to attack. If you see their teeth it is time to run, not point your stupid camera (on the smile mode) with the hopes that it would catch a picture of a happy ape.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy of the American Dental Association. They have so mesmerized our brains that we must have perfect teeth—worthy of a flashing smile and the attention of the stupid camera.
They have done a great job. Have you seen those TV personalities and models that seem unable to keep their mouth close even for a second? Of course it creates a problem when they need to pronounce words that begin with letters such a p, f, b, or m---those that require your lips to meet. They would rather sacrifice and butcher those words for the sake of not looking unhappy, even for a moment. May be even the TV cameras are designed freeze if they do not see the teeth of their subjects, much like the stupid digital cameras.
It is time for us non-teeth-flashing-smilers to unite. Let us become a force to reckon with. Let us help design cameras that refuse to take pictures if they see even a glint of teeth.
May 2010
For a person like me who generally does not flash his teeth while posing for a picture this creates a problem. Either learn to flash, or be ignored by the stupid camera…in effect become a persona non grata. How insulting is this! Outrageous!
How did it come to pass that you have to bare all your teeth for a smile? When did the curving-your-lips-upward stop becoming a legitimate smile?
It can not be genetic. Apes, our closest genetic cousins, flash their teeth only when they are ready to attack. If you see their teeth it is time to run, not point your stupid camera (on the smile mode) with the hopes that it would catch a picture of a happy ape.
Perhaps it is a conspiracy of the American Dental Association. They have so mesmerized our brains that we must have perfect teeth—worthy of a flashing smile and the attention of the stupid camera.
They have done a great job. Have you seen those TV personalities and models that seem unable to keep their mouth close even for a second? Of course it creates a problem when they need to pronounce words that begin with letters such a p, f, b, or m---those that require your lips to meet. They would rather sacrifice and butcher those words for the sake of not looking unhappy, even for a moment. May be even the TV cameras are designed freeze if they do not see the teeth of their subjects, much like the stupid digital cameras.
It is time for us non-teeth-flashing-smilers to unite. Let us become a force to reckon with. Let us help design cameras that refuse to take pictures if they see even a glint of teeth.
May 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Who am I?
In the next few days I will receive a packet from US Census. Once again I will be amazed by the absurdity of the question that relates to classifying us.
To make a classification system work, the categories have to be mutually exclusive. One should not have, at the same time, a classification based on race (Caucasian), region of origin (African American), skin color (white) or linguistic preference (Hispanic). This creates an absurd situation for a white person who was born in Africa of Spanish speaking parents. He would be a white Caucasian Hispanic African-American.
Interestingly, one can not use the other terms in the same category. For example, it is OK to call someone Caucasian—or Caucasoid, but not Mongoloid or Negroid, the other two major races. Similarly, we have Hispanics, but not too many Hindics or Chinicks. White is an acceptable classification term, and to some extent, Black, but try to call someone Brown or Yellow.
I have not even touched the subject of what happens when a child is produced out of a union of parents of two different classes. How would she classify herself? I suppose the answer is ---any way she wants.
Now I understand that the person self selects the classification term to some extent, reflecting his or her cultural identification. That is useful in terms of finding people who share your experience or history, as well as indicate how you would like to be treated by the others.
However, why should we collect this data on a national basis? This is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer---in order to ensure that we have sufficient representation of different classes in things like government, and such.
Perhaps one day that would not be the case. We will achieve a situation where there will be no discrimination based on the “class” and there will be no need to keep tabs on it. Or , more likely, after generations of intermarriages, the system will become so convoluted, that we will abandon it.
Until then…I will ask to be classified as a Caucasian, Indian-American, Brown (wheatish??), Gujaratinic. I hope they have a slot for that in the census.
PS: After I wrote this post, I did receive the census form. There was no box for how I would prefer to be classified, but they did have separate classifications based on whether you are a Hispanic or not, and your “race”---an absurd title for a mélange of categories. In any case, I sheepishly put myself as Asian Indian. Talking about which, why should we be punished for the ignorance exhibited by Columbus? May be that should be a subject of another post!
April 2010
To make a classification system work, the categories have to be mutually exclusive. One should not have, at the same time, a classification based on race (Caucasian), region of origin (African American), skin color (white) or linguistic preference (Hispanic). This creates an absurd situation for a white person who was born in Africa of Spanish speaking parents. He would be a white Caucasian Hispanic African-American.
Interestingly, one can not use the other terms in the same category. For example, it is OK to call someone Caucasian—or Caucasoid, but not Mongoloid or Negroid, the other two major races. Similarly, we have Hispanics, but not too many Hindics or Chinicks. White is an acceptable classification term, and to some extent, Black, but try to call someone Brown or Yellow.
I have not even touched the subject of what happens when a child is produced out of a union of parents of two different classes. How would she classify herself? I suppose the answer is ---any way she wants.
Now I understand that the person self selects the classification term to some extent, reflecting his or her cultural identification. That is useful in terms of finding people who share your experience or history, as well as indicate how you would like to be treated by the others.
However, why should we collect this data on a national basis? This is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer---in order to ensure that we have sufficient representation of different classes in things like government, and such.
Perhaps one day that would not be the case. We will achieve a situation where there will be no discrimination based on the “class” and there will be no need to keep tabs on it. Or , more likely, after generations of intermarriages, the system will become so convoluted, that we will abandon it.
Until then…I will ask to be classified as a Caucasian, Indian-American, Brown (wheatish??), Gujaratinic. I hope they have a slot for that in the census.
PS: After I wrote this post, I did receive the census form. There was no box for how I would prefer to be classified, but they did have separate classifications based on whether you are a Hispanic or not, and your “race”---an absurd title for a mélange of categories. In any case, I sheepishly put myself as Asian Indian. Talking about which, why should we be punished for the ignorance exhibited by Columbus? May be that should be a subject of another post!
April 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
