Debate Championship III-4th and 5th Aug - Page 5

Everyone who is "against" the topic please tell me....

Do you believe ones clothing does not define who they are? If a girl wore small clothing covering less of her body would you assume she is a girl who does not want to be seduced or does not want any attention? If she didn't want attention she wouldn't wear such clothes then. That is one reason which shows why clothes define who you are.

Many kids want to be like their peers. They try to be the people they admire or want to be like because they believe they are cool. And so they do whatever they take to change their appearance and lifestyle to become like them. They also change their perceptions to match them with the people they admire or believe are cool. So imitation plays a big part in loosing ones values of their culture.

Many people in India, Pakistan, and other Eastern countries are following the path of loosing their culture. They do so because they believe it is "cool."

Regards,

Bunty

Im Pink!

Originally posted by: gk_09

Grapie,Even today,there are people living abroad who make sure that their children(todays generation) speak their mother tounge fluently. 

[quote=gk_09]

Its not about the pair of jeans Eisha. Its about the other clothing. I agree myself tha jeans in a pratical piece of clothing but what about the other clothing. If you go into a mall, into the girls section all you can find is short tops, halter tops, mini skirts etc. Have you ever found full length clothing. I dont wear short clothing, I myself have to go to the ladies section and find a large and wear that. About the guyz, its the opposite, you'll never find a pair of jeans or a short that isnt twice your size. You'll never find a just the right size.

[/quote]

Noone is asking you to wear short clothing. I dont agree with the fact that malls abroad dont have variety, and sell only short clothes. Once you go into a shop, you can find clothes of all shapes and sizes there. As you mentioned, the people who arent comfortable with short clothing, other sizes are avaiable too. Its the same with the guys. If you go and ask the shopkeeper for something fit for a 12 year old, and u feel its too baggy, u can always ask him to you something which'll fit a 10 year old, so even if it is baggy, itll fit a 12 year old just fine. There are loads of choices!

[quote=gk_09]

Currently in Canada, South Asian clothing is popular. White, black, chinese, you name it they wear it. So, why are we being afraid of wearing such things. Kurta's are also new in fashion here. I see everyone wear why not us, south asian people. Is there anything wrong with it if other people wear why cant you wear. Why are they still wearing baggy clothing when the rest of the province is wearing your culture clothing.

[/quote]

As i said, its all about wearing what you are comfortable in. Be that a jeans, or a shalwar suit!

Message to members. This is a Debate championship post and only those who are participating in here i.e. T. , MMNS, heart girl,gk_09 and ~Khizer~ and Mrs.Eishu.SRK may post here.

Others, if you have anything to add to this debate, may please pm the Mods/ Viewbies of this section and indicate your views. They will then take appropriate decisions in the matter.

Please do not post here.

Mods, all those who posted here, their posts have been trashed - for ur info.

Abhijit - I'm picking Black as always

Originally posted by: ~Khizer~

Evolution is a change. A change in lifestyle. A change to ones way of living per se.

If you change. Your thinking changes as well and so do the values you hold.

How can one evolve and not their thinking? How can they evolve without change? Evolution is change. They evolve and so do their values.

In conclusion, evolution is a loss of culture. A great loss.😛

Regards,

Bunty

By that account, we can also say that our current "culture" (which is a mix of different cultures anyway) that you say is getting lost was built upon the loss of the Indus Valley Culture and civilization!

However, we have accepted differences into our culture - namely the Aryans, the Mughals, the Persians. We have definitely changed they way we think. If we thought the way our forefathers did, then Women would have no voting rights! India is open-minded and people have the freedom to be themselves!

All of you have argued that the Mughals entering our country enriched its culture! And they most definitely did. We integrated them into our system; now so many of us wear salwar kurtas in India, which were introduced by people from Central Asia. So, why then is Western influence seen as such a threat that we are "losing" our culture?

Enrichment = GAIN not loss of culture. We are undergoing a change, but as long as we preserve our identities, Indian culture will never be lost.

In fact, what was supposedly "lost" earlier is coming back into play now. For instance: the Origins of democracy in India was around the 6th Century BCE - called Mahajanapadas. E.g. Vaishali (modern Bihar) was one of our first republics. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy)

Later, we had a period of full-fleged monarchies. Now once again we have democracy. Its all very cyclical. Everything is coming back. If we had truly "lost" these things due to invasions, they would not be re-emerging.

This is why I once again state that, we may evolve, but we will never "lose" what is innately good in our cultures. The good is what needs to be preserved anyway.

 

Black again

[QUOTE=~Khizer~]

Red - mine

No. We are accepting western culture and forgetting about our own. All we know how to say is o were brown, and were proud to be brown but we act the total opposite. We were such baggy clothes, piece our ears (btw, this is for the guyz) which is not our culture. Have you seen native Rajasthani men? They wear earrings. So did the Emperors of the Mughal Sultanate. Ornamentation was common even in ancient times. 😊  And about the girls, we where such mini tops, low cut pants, try act all kool when our culture says to cover your body not to expose it. I have already referred to this in my other post. But, covering our bodies is not necessarily a ground rule in our culture. A normal sari often leaves the stomach and back bare. 😊

While leaving the stomach a saari also offers something to cover it so it does not get exposed.😛 The back is always bare. It doesn't hold enough significance to cover the back as it does the front. 😊 [/quote]

Why not? Many people find backs very alluring.😉 In Regency England, women's ANKLES were alluring to men. And the cover on the front does not necessarily cover the side of a woman's waist. One very recent example: Kareena Kapoor/Fardeen Khan fight over "tumne meri kamar ko kyon dekha?" in a flop movie 😆 (er...I would say, "because your sari revealed it"😛)

If we're talking about exposure, then it was common in ancient times. It was even depicted in "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" by Zeenat Aman.  

 

Originally posted by: ~Khizer~

Everyone who is "against" the topic please tell me....

Do you believe ones clothing does not define who they are? If a girl wore small clothing covering less of her body would you assume she is a girl who does not want to be seduced or does not want any attention? If she didn't want attention she wouldn't wear such clothes then. That is one reason which shows why clothes define who you are. [/quote]

Does that mean a man who wears no shirts while working in the fields in hot weather is also asking to be seduced?

Women should be free to wear what they LIKE and what is comfortable to them. The human body is natural - why should we be ashamed of it?

Also skimpy clothes do not necessarily lead to physical abuse or rape. It is the mindset - a sick mindset which leads to this. Physical abuse happens to women who are fully covered as well.

Moreover, the more people are exposed to skimpy clothing, the less they care about it. For instance: when I was in Singapore, girls would walk in crowded areas wearing miniskirts, but they would not be hassled.

 

[quote=]Many kids want to be like their peers. They try to be the people they admire or want to be like because they believe they are cool. And so they do whatever they take to change their appearance and lifestyle to become like them. They also change their perceptions to match them with the people they admire or believe are cool. So imitation plays a big part in loosing ones values of their culture.

Many people in India, Pakistan, and other Eastern countries are following the path of loosing their culture. They do so because they believe it is "cool."

Regards,

Bunty

What you are describing is a "trend". Trends are never permanent, they keep changing as times change. Old trends keep coming back over and over again.

For example: the Bell Bottoms of the 60s made a revival recently in the form of "boot cut jeans".

Kurta shirts which were worn by women a few decades ago are coming back into fashion. My father just told me yesterday that I was wearing a shirt similar to what my granny used to wear when she was younger.

We are in a way seeing a throw-back to our ancient culture where people wore skimpier clothes due to the weather.

Edited by T. - 17 years ago

Me in the alien GREEN!!! 😆

Originally posted by: ~Khizer~

Red - mine

Edited by MNMS - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: ~Khizer~

 KHIZER WROTE: Evolution is a change. A change in lifestyle. A change to ones way of living per se.
If you change. Your thinking changes as well and so do the values you hold.
How can one evolve and not their thinking? How can they evolve without change? Evolution is change. They evolve and so do their values.
In conclusion, evolution is a loss of culture. A great loss.
Regards,
Bunty

Wrong!!!! Evolution never ever means a loss of culture and sociologist have proved that. I will take help from their culture defination and theories!

Culture is the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour. Culture, thus defined, consists of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, tools, techniques, works of art, rituals, ceremonies, and other related components. The development of culture depends upon humans' capacity to learn and to transmit knowledge to succeeding generations.Social scientists and anthropologists have offered a number of definitions of human culture, reflecting various schools of thought. Edward Burnett Tylor, in his Primitive Culture (1871), provided what has been termed the classic definition, according to which culture includes all capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.Every human society has its own particular culture, or sociocultural system, which overlaps to some extent with other systems. Variation among sociocultural systems is attributable to physical habitats and resources; to the range of possibilities inherent in various areas of activity, such as language, rituals and customs, and the manufacture and use of tools; and to the degree of social development. The attitudes, values, ideals, and beliefs of the individual are greatly influenced by the culture in which he lives, and an individual may, of course, live in or travel among several different cultures. [source : Brittanica]

Sociocultural evolutionism and the idea of progress :

Sociologists and anthropologists have developed analogies between human society and the biological organism and introduced into sociological theory such biological concepts as variation, natural selection, and inheritance—evolutionary factors resulting in the progress of societies through stages of savagery and barbarism to civilisation, by virtue of the survival of the fittest. Herbert Spencer : Although he wrote that societies over time progressed, and that progress was accomplished through competition, he stressed that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection and that it affects social as well as biological phenomenon.
     
Lewis H. Morgan, an anthropologist whose ideas have had much impact on sociology, in his 1877 classic Ancient Societies differentiated between three eras: savagery, barbarism and civilisation, which are divided by technological inventions, like fire, bow, pottery in savage era, domestication of animals, agriculture, metalworking in barbarian era and alphabet and writing in civilisation era. Thus Morgan introduced a link between the social progress and technological progress. Morgan viewed the technological progress as a force behind the social progress, and any social change—in social institutions, organisations or ideologies have their beginning in the change of technology

Edward Burnett Tylor, pioneer of anthropology, focused on the evolution of culture worldwide, noting that culture is an important part of every society and that it is also subject to the process of evolution. He believed that societies were at different stages of cultural development and that the purpose of anthropology was to reconstruct the evolution of culture, from primitive beginnings to the modern state.
evolution of culture, from primitive beginnings to the modern state.

Ferdinand Tnnies describes the evolution as the development from informal society, where people have many liberties and there are few laws and obligations, to modern, formal rational society, dominated by traditions and laws and are restricted from acting as they wish. He also notes that there is a tendency of standardisation and unification, when all smaller societies are absorbed into the single, large, modern society. Thus Tnnies can be said to describe part of the process known today as the globalisation [Source: Wikipedia]

Acculturation:

It is the processes of change in artifacts, customs, and beliefs that result from the contact of societies with different cultural traditions. The term is also used to refer to the results of such changes.Two major types of acculturation may be distinguished based on two classes of conditions under which changes take place. A free "borrowing" and modification of cultural elements may occur when people of different cultures maintain an interchange without the exercise of military or political domination of one group by another. These new elements may be integrated into the existing culture in a process called incorporation. The unconquered Navajo Indians, in frequent and varied contact with Spanish colonists in the 18th century, selected elements of Spanish culture such as clothing and metalworking techniques that were integrated into their own culture in their own way.

Directed change, the second type of acculturation, takes place when one people establishes dominance over another through military conquest or political control. Directed change characterized the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean region and western Europe, the American conquest of the North American Indians, the European domination of Africa, and many other political expansions.Directed culture change, like incorporation, involves selection and modification, but the processes are more varied and the results more complex because they result from the interference in one cultural system by members of another. The processes that operate under conditions of directed change include assimilation, the almost complete replacement of one culture by another; cultural fusion, a new synthesis of cultural elements differing from both precontact cultures; and reaction against aspects of the dominant culture. [Source Brittanica]

Evolution is proven by sociologists and despite evolution cultures preserve themselves!!

Edited by MNMS - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: ~Khizer~

We are reverting back to ancient times where skimpy clothing was fashionable due to climatic condition. 😛 Also, I've never had a problem finding full length clothing - even in the most modern malls. It depends on where you shop. 😊

And what about ancient times? Why are we reverting? One reason could be to imitate another culture. The western culture consist of clothes such as shirts, jeans, shorts, skirts, and other things. Since such clothing is part of western culture, that is what they wear.

In western weddings you would most likely wear a suit since that is the "traditional western attire." However in an Eastern wedding such as an Indian one, a traditional attire for men would be a "Shirwani" (In pakistan at least so i would assume India as well😛). BUT, many many men have started to wear suits to their weddings now-a-days. They have reverted to wearing a suit rather than their traditional dress. This evolution in fashion or choice per se is changing their perception. By wearing a suit, they are imitating a western trend and trying to act of be like a western groom. 

Each culture has their own clothing. They have their own traditional attire. So why are people trying to change it? Are they trying to change an aspect of their tradition? Are they trying to evolve from it? Well the answer you can obviously see is yes! You will also see a majority of the guest who are men wearing suits and wearing a suit is not part of their tradition (presumming all guest are Indian😛). Although it is not required to wear anything traditional, somethings are rather not meant to be discussed and this is certainly one of them. [/quote]

Sherwanis, shararas, etc. came into our fashion scene from the outside. But, now that they are integrated, we dont see anything wrong with them! All these clothes come under "traditional" category. Why are western fashions then seen as an element which leads to "loss"?

Yes, there are people who try to blend into the culture. I dont blame them. They are no longer in their own country and are forced to adapt to it for practical necessity - cold weather, etc.

Again, a reminder that NRIs do not constitute India's entire population.

Values differ from person to person, even within a culture. India accepts all those differences. It is the "melting pot of all cultures" as Eisha already mentioned. Unity in Diversity.

Im PINK!

While leaving the stomach a saari also offers something to cover it so it does not get exposed.😛 The back is always bare. It doesn't hold enough significance to cover the back as it does the front. 😊

[/quote]

Well, a normal jeans and top actually covers more than a sarree!!

[Quote=Mrs.Eishu.SRK]

[quote=~Khizer~]

The British changed a part of the Indian culture one way or another. They made people of one culture try to adopt another one by influencing their ways. Although many people gave in, people such as Ghandi did not. What is a main reason Ghandi is famous for? One reason would be he did not let the British effect his society and lifestyle. By not letting them interfere with his lifestyle, he preserved the Indian way of living at the time and not adopt any british ways.

[/quote]

There were many more like Gandhi.

What about those people(who aren't famous) but lost their lives,refues to let the British rule over them?

Well, they should stand up for freedom and raise their voice as well. No one is stopping them. They should stand up and say that their not going to let west culture influence them and there life style.

Well what about them Eisha? didn't understand your point on that.

[/Quote]

You said, Gandhi is famous for not letting the British overpower his beliefs. What i was trying to put forward is that in those times, and even now  , there are people, although probably not as famous and determined as Gandhi, but those who want to preserve their culture. And they are successful in doing so regardless of where they live.😊

[Quote=~Khizer~]

The exploitation of a different culture has affected the culture of one from which he came from. Many NRI's (Non-returning Indians) have adopted other cultures. They have adopted other languages and dialects. Dialects are an aspect of one culture. Dialects are part of the values of one culture. The adaptation of different dialects has changed ones original values and changed them as well

 

 

...NRI stands for Non Resident Indians and not non returning indians😛 

 

Thnks!😛

[/quote]

 

No problem!😛

 

 

Edited by Mrs.Eishu.SRK - 17 years ago