Live data from Hacker News

Having a Servant Is Not a Right

nytimes.com

11–20 of 235 posts

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#11

Arresting a diplomat will always cause problems but it was absolutely inexcusable for this diplomat to expect to get away with underpaying their housekeeper. That said, strip-searching someone over a wage dispute is far beyond the pale as well. And strip-searching an Indian diplomat for no particularly good reason during an arrest, is not just wrong, but also really fucking stupid, as it could have actual security im…

[deleted]

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#12
post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

We still call all those people service providers.

Specialization and number of customers seem to be pretty clear distinguishers (where servant sort of implies lots of different tasks for a single household).

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#13
post #2

> "If somebody cannot afford to have [X], then they don’t have [X]." To be fair, many Americans could take the same lesson. (And thanks for making me have to agree with the Heritage Foundation. Now I need to go take a shower and read some Paul Krugman columns...)

If being fair is your intention, perhaps "Americans" ought to be replaced with "people." There's a lot of things you can lay on the USA's doorstep, but a monopoly on irresponsibility or entitlement is not one of them.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#14
"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals."

Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite?

Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#15

Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are there to protect US...not THEM. You know, sort of like how it would be incredibly hypocritical to agree to international war crime laws then commit acts of torture and overthrow the sovereign ruler of a country. You can't do that! You...oops.

U.S. is not a member of ICC [1].

And regarding war crimes... You know that the Geneva rules only apply to enemy __combatants__ right?

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internati...

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#16
post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

Having lived in the US, and then having encountered 'servants' in other countries, a striking difference is the respect for the person when they are not 'on duty'. In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. A lifetime servant is conditioned to be deferential, in every part of their life, not just while working. Or said another way, they are always 'working' - oftentimes from birth until death. There is a stark difference in hiring a cook to come over and cook - and when he's not cooking for you be able to have his own family, hobbies, political motivations and all the rest of his life - and having a cook who 'serves' you - full stop. There is a fundamental difference between these perspectives. I believe this is why the idea of a 'servant' is so distasteful to an American. Though again, it took meeting and interacting with true 'servants' (outside the US) to even become aware of the distinction.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#17

Arresting a diplomat will always cause problems but it was absolutely inexcusable for this diplomat to expect to get away with underpaying their housekeeper. That said, strip-searching someone over a wage dispute is far beyond the pale as well. And strip-searching an Indian diplomat for no particularly good reason during an arrest, is not just wrong, but also really fucking stupid, as it could have actual security im…

Rich, poor, American, Kazakh, it doesn't matter. If you are arrested you are strip searched to protect you, the prison staff, and the other prisoners. There are different kinds of diplomatic immunity. Hers was explicitly limited to official work. The run-Americans-over-and-get-off-scot-free kind is a different diplomatic designation.

If you are arrested you are strip searched to protect you, the prison staff, and the other prisoners.

Given that it obviously doesn't at all work at keeping stuff out of jails, would you entertain the idea that the reason behind standardising strip-search might be more psychological in nature.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#18
post #7

> Last week, I watched with bewilderment as India’s most vociferous talk show host, Arnab Goswami, repeatedly asked his guests if they expected an Indian diplomat who is paid $4,180 a month to pay her domestic servant $4,500 a month. Meanwhile an American guest, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, tried to make a point: “If somebody cannot afford to have domestic help, then they don’t have domest…

"Servant" vs. "professional domestic help" is a fuzzy distinction. There's a number of check boxes.

Typically what we consider to be a servant involves domestic duties & being at someone's beck-and-call.

Roles such as mechanic or gardener wouldn't be considered as such, because they are both fairly autonomous roles.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#19

Yeah. OK. I think any rational human would agree that the treatment of the servant was wrong. OTOH: NEVER violate diplomatic immunity rules! They are there to protect US...not THEM. You know, sort of like how it would be incredibly hypocritical to agree to international war crime laws then commit acts of torture and overthrow the sovereign ruler of a country. You can't do that! You...oops.

Who violated diplomatic immunity rules?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#20
post #14

"India is furious that the diplomat, Devyani Khobragade, was strip-searched and kept in a cell in New York with criminals." Because wage theft isn't at all like those nasty crimes everybody else does, amirite? Well, it is slightly different - it's only committable by people who have enough cash to pay wages. So in short: "waddya mean I'm a criminal? I'M RICH!"

Well, it's white-collar crime. Even Americans are not entirely happy with white-collar criminals getting thrown in with blue-collar criminals. Not because of classism, just because white-collar criminals are non-violent and it doesn't seem right to throw an embezzler in with cutthroats & muggers.
Post reply on HN