I am neither ashamed of, nor apologetic of my culture’s arranged marriage system. Nor am I particularly attached to it, hence I see no reason not to discuss it from a neutral, sociological point of view.

You will not find me cowering in shame over the subject matter, nor trying to shame YOU into defending or apologizing for whatever mating systems might be en vogue in your culture, like Sarcastician did in comment # 59 with this silliness; I know right, village women in India are chained to the rice paddy fields. I just wish they could work in strip clubs just like a normal American girl where she could express her “sensualities”.

What nonsense.

So here goes. NM, you say that in Africa the rural folk have no caste system and hence will not arrange marriages according to caste. Think of caste as tribe. In fact, the caste system is nothing but a tribal system. My research of Africa (thankyou DISCOVERY channel, lol), lays bare the fact that African tribal folk do in fact arrange marriages amongst each other in accordance to tribal affiliation. Now, if you look at African people who have left behind their ancestral faiths and converted to Abrahamic religions, you will find them arranging their marriages according to religion. Cases of Muslims being arranged with Christians or Christians being arranged with indigenous African religion adherents would be rare, if existant at all. However, being that plenty of African folk marry according to their own choice as well, in those self-chosen marriages you may find more cross-religious loving taking place.

Now about India. The caste system is an ancient tribal system, nothing more nothing less. However, this system has expanded and complicated itself in a myriad of ways over the centuries. Being that India is not a mono-linguistic and mono-cultural place, the way that people presevered their cultures was through marriage. You see, India has several different languages. Hence, one of the criteria for marriage has usually been “same linguistic group”. Another criteria has often been “same regional group”. Another criteria has been “same religious group”. Another – “similar educational and economic background”, give or take a little either up or down the scale. This is the way that people of South Asia sought to preserve their cultures. Eating habits are common concerns. If you were raised as a strict Hindu vegetarian who does not eat cooked food from outside your home, then to marry a Muslim who’s culture requires the sacrifice of animals during Eid or at the end of a pilgrimage to Mecca, well, that could be a problem. It could also be a problem for you to marry another Hindu from a sect that sacrifices animals as well, such as the Kali Ma bhakta/shaktas of West Bengal. So to preserve the various cultures, sub-cultures and mini-cultures of India, and there are many such cultures within the borders of that tract of land even today, people were arranged to marry people who were more similar to them than not.

It is all very tribal in essence. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

Now, when it comes to dating. Have you ever been to India? When and if you ever go you will come to realize that India is a place with several different “time zones”. By time zones I mean that several centuries are living side by side in India – simultaneously. You have the pre-modern, the modern, and the post-modern, all living side by side. Indian people who are modern or post-modern are more likely to date. That is usually because their lifestyles allow them to cross boundaries, even of language. They know English, so even if one’s mother tongue is Tamil and her lover’s mother tongue is Bhojpuri, well, they communicate in English. But take a pre-modern Tamilian who speaks only Tamil and a pre-modern Bihari who speaks only Bhojpuri and you can see that just the linguistic difference alone would prevent them from communicating with one another, what to speak of developing any sort of longterm relationship.

The idea to supplant modern and post-modern ideas of dating and mating upon people who are living pre-modern lifestyles just does not make sense because they do not have the require tools for such. For instance, in most villages of India there is no place to go on a “date”. No fancy restaurants, no nice movie theatres were men and women attend in mixed company, no ambience-drenched roadside cafes. Where would couples go? Another thing, because dating is not part of such pre-modern lifestyles, the people would not have been trained and practiced in “game” – flirting, approach techniques, etc.

There just is not a sufficient physical or mental/emotional space for the people to implement a very alien concept such as dating. However, a case could be made for “courtship” in such villages. You know, in the West, during pre-industrial days there was “courtship” – chaparoned meetings between young men and women with the permission of their families, all with a view towards marriage. I could see that being implemented in the villages of India and working. However, most likely those courtships would be within the same groupings as I’ve outlined above, just due to practicality and exposure alone.

For more on the phenomena of the current 2009 world we live in being pre-modern, modern and post-modern all at the same time, take a listen to this short piece on “culture wars”;http://odeo.com/episodes/22048615-Ken-Wilber-Taking-Perspectives-on-the-Culture-Wars

Human beings segregate themselves along all kinds of lines everywhere, constantly and naturally. We seek people with whom we have things in common, whether it’s religion, politics, same taste in literature or whatever. Post-modernism has not yet succeeded in making us not want to be with people whom we understand and whom understand us, although it is succeeding in bringing people together for understanding each others’ differences whom previously (before the onslaught of our current technology and before the link of a common language – English) would not have had even the ability to communicate minimally with each other.

In short, the more modern and post-modern people become, the more likely they are to take to modern and post-modern forms of relating, dating and mating, simply because they will have the required tools to do so.

However, it is my personal opinion that the arranged marriage system is a good idea and should be tweaked to suit those of us living in a modern or post-modern lifestyle. Those of us who have the tools required for today’s latest form of dating and mating should be allowed to give that a go, and if that fails for us, a sort of “assisted marriage” system should be in place for us to fall back on. I say that an individual should have the choice of going with either one – or both at different times, because I’m meeting too many lonely individuals in their 30s, 40s, and 50s whom the merry-go-round of dating and mating, all the while looking for “the one”, has not worked.

touche. well, if your economic stimulus package pays for my graduate education, i’ll be the CC to your jack donaghy.

Really? Such things could never ever ever happen in rural Africa? Really now?

Even in America just 40 years ago a Black guy would find himself lynched if he offended the wrong White person. And we were the richest country in the world at the time?

You need to get something straight. Wherever you find money, power, or prestige at stake you will find people being dicks to each other. The more desperate people are for money, power, or prestige the more likely they are to be dicks. All it takes is the most basic understanding of human nature to figure this out.

whatevz, dude; i got in because desis are a URM in da club. yay diversity points!

Well Port…I’ve long argued AA only helps those who don’t need it in the 1st place.

People like to patronize the rural poor by imagining that their lives are just endless torrents of pain. It’s just not so. If it was really that bad they would have all killed themselves by now but go to these villages and you will see smiles. You see more people smiling walking down the street than I see walking down any US Metro sidewalk. And they’re kind too. The hospitality and generosity of the dirt poor Indian (or African

I don’t think anyone is patronizing them and of course they are not mindless.

Anyway, i was watching this documentary on dalits in india and one of the scenes shows two women arguing when a dalit child accidentally run into a non-dalit section of the village and the non-dalit woman is yelling at the kid’s mother and complaining that the dalit child had no right (simply because they were a dalit) — had no right to even step on to their side of the village.

In rural Africa, this would never, ever, happen because there is no such caste system. I understand poverty, but I don’t understand the caste system.

Link to documentary here: http://www.joost.com/3128xea/t/The-Untouchables

whatevz, dude; i got in because desis are a URM in da club. yay diversity points!

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

Finally someone said it. I don’t know where this ridiculous romanticized idea of “rural” or “traditional” India came from. People always broke the rules and they always will break the rules. It’s part of what makes life exciting.

While the “traditional” India might have believed in maintaining certain standards that doesn’t mean that everyone stuck to them. “Traditional” American mores discourage teen-pregnancies and divorce too and yet here we are.

People like to patronize the rural poor by imagining that their lives are just endless torrents of pain. It’s just not so. If it was really that bad they would have all killed themselves by now but go to these villages and you will see smiles. You see more people smiling walking down the street than I see walking down any US Metro sidewalk. And they’re kind too. The hospitality and generosity of the dirt poor Indian (or African or Latin American) peasant is staggering. They will gladly give you the shirt off their back if you need it badly enough.

I’m not saying it’s perfect. Various forms of prejudice abound and it’s shameful that they haven’t been given access to schools, a decent standard of healthcare and sanitation, and the opportunities to find dignified work. But this idea that everyone who is poor is just living in some mindless subhuman existence is just absurd. What they need is people who respect them enough to care about what they want for themselves. What they don’t particularly care for is pity, patronization, and feigned empathy.

Cheeky aunty@61, good one..very deep philosophy….btw “Pothi Vacha” nice song