Having a Servant Is Not a Right • Hacker News Board

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#121

Post by bane » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:29 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #12

bane wrote: 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).

> We still call all those people service providers.

Well, I'm wondering if we're using "service providers" as a euphemism for certain classes of servants because we're uncomfortable with the word. I've never actually heard anybody in the U.S. say they have "servants", despite having a Au Pairs, Personal Assistants, Live-in gardeners etc.

At what point does my maid, who I personally contract with become a servant rather than a service provider? Does she have to come every day? Do I have to be her only employer? Can she just come once a week?

I think in reality what Americans are afraid of is not "servants" per se, but "servitude" and all that implies.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#122

Post by brazzy » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:30 PM UTC

wozniacki wrote: post #108

bitops wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh...as a Danish person, I think part of that distinction also is that Denmark has a really bad service culture compared to the US. It does seem to be changing. But I feel like Danes are a pretty proud (and/or headstrong) folk with very strong (and sometimes misguided, see Janteloven) notions around class and equality. I feel like many Danes who work in the service sector project this attitude that they're really ab…

Under Janteloven: The ten rules state: You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as us. You're not to think you are smarter than us. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than us. You're not to think you know more than us. You're not to think you are better than us. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone…

Do keep in mind that those were never written down as rules to be followed, but postulated in a work that criticized such social norms.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#123

Post by mjn » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:36 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #122

wozniacki wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under Janteloven: The ten rules state: You're not to think you are anything special. You're not to think you are as good as us. You're not to think you are smarter than us. You're not to convince yourself that you are better than us. You're not to think you know more than us. You're not to think you are better than us. You're not to think you are good at anything. You're not to laugh at us. You're not to think anyone…

Do keep in mind that those were never written down as rules to be followed, but postulated in a work that criticized such social norms.

They don't even seem that strange as an American. It's just (a parody of) typical conservative Protestant small-town mentality. Much of Scandinavia at the time was made up of religious, Protestant small towns, with most of the population engaged in farming or fishing (and the novel in question was set in such a town). People in small-town and rural America don't like big-city, degree-and-money-having people who "think they're better", either. Sinclair Lewis's 1920 novel Main Street, about small-town American attitudes, has some loose parallels.

I think the same is true even today in the US. Some of the people who're lionized in Palo Alto or NYC would be shunned in much of the "heartland", if they flaunted their wealth or education and came across as thinking they were a "super-achiever". You're allowed to be rich, but you're expected to act somewhat humble and "down-to-earth" about it and not see yourself as better than other kinds of people (especially farmers, who have their own mythos). Warren Buffet, a lifelong midwesterner, is an example of being rich but still sort of pulling that off.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#124

Post by x0054 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:37 PM UTC

genwin wrote: post #119

x0054 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible, but someone has to pay for it, and their budget already has severe deficits.

Income taxes, enforced. India has plenty of money and resources, and would have more of both after adopting a minimum wage because labor would be better utilized. It might be hard but don't tell me it can't happen or that people will starve to death.

You are right. Step 1, fix the woefully broken legal system in India. Step 2, streamline the crippling and impossible to navigate bureaucracy. Step 3, create a functional income tax collection apparatus in a mostly cash society. Step 4, solve the drinking water and sewage problems. Step 5, convince the majority of the country inhabitants that the cast system is bad (they do not think so). ... Step X, implement an Cross the board minimum wage.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#125

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:37 PM UTC

A minimum wage would definitely help the wages of a lot of servants. But it would (probably) mean some percent of them becoming unemployed because they can't be afforded/aren't worth the cost anymore. It might also decrease working conditions, because those unemployed people are now competing for your job. You can't compete on the basis of wages anymore so now it on the basis of how much you can do/put up with. Also because it then becomes harder to leave your job and find another.

That doesn't mean there isn't a net benefit to doing it. An ideal solution would be a basic income. Tax everyone equally, not just those that hire lots of servants, and benefit everyone equally, not just employed servants. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#126

Post by maxerickson » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:39 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #121

maxerickson wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> We still call all those people service providers. Well, I'm wondering if we're using "service providers" as a euphemism for certain classes of servants because we're uncomfortable with the word. I've never actually heard anybody in the U.S. say they have "servants", despite having a Au Pairs, Personal Assistants, Live-in gardeners etc. At what point does my maid, who I personally contract with become a servant rath…

Yes, I was sort of trying to point out that "service" has the same word root in there.

I don't think I've ever had a conversation with someone that had an Au Pair or live-in gardener, so of course I haven't heard them talk about their servants. I've known people who were sort of uncomfortable about paying a maid (but I guess this was more rooted in the protestant work ethic than any sort of queasiness over servitude, never mind that these people weren't very religious).

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#127

Post by credo » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:42 PM UTC

I think it was wrong to strip-search and do cavity searches on the consular officer (in this case, a woman) "accused" of underpaying a maid. However,I'm not going to focus on that and I'm not going to quibble with some of the exaggerations in this column. Overall, I agree that Ms Khobragade must be prosecuted and the evidence clearly suggests that she is guilty.

However, I find it astonishing that so many people (most of them sharing my citizenship) can be so oblivious to some of the mind-boggling arrogant hypocrisy going around.

Recently, there was a news report on "diplomatic immunity" for an "information management officer" in the US embassy in Kenya. This American man was speeding in his SUV. He crossed the middle-line and crashed into another vehicle killing one man and injuring many more.

This wasn't just the garden-variety "hit and run" accident we see in America. This man didn't just flee the scene, he fled Kenya (with US government help) and the US government is asserting "diplomatic immunity".

Can any critic of India seriously argue that it is OK for the US to assert diplomatic immunity and spirit this "information management officer" out of the country - even though he killed one innocent man (in this case, a father of three) with his reckless driving.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#128

Post by wrongc0ntinent » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:42 PM UTC

kamakazizuru wrote: post #81

The author shows a complete lack of understanding of India - and brings up completely unrelated topics (casteism?!) to support her already weak point. In fact - bringing up the Diplomats caste is her being racist (casteist? - dunno the right word but you know what I mean) herself. It's as if an American author were to say "well a few hundred years ago these black people were slaves - and now they dare to treat someon…

Your sample is too small. India is more of a fragmented subcontinent than a country. There is no "city like Bombay" (other than Mumbai).

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#129

Post by sliverstorm » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:43 PM UTC

iamjustin wrote: post #118

sliverstorm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of your listed crimes are not violent crimes in themselves, although any and all can commit violence in the course of their "profession" in which case, yes, they are now violent criminals.

What are you saying? Just because they could be violent means they are violent? There's no profession where someone couldn't act violently.

You folks are trying real hard to put words in my mouth. My parent asked if I thought those were violent crimes; I said no. I also added that if they commit violence in the course of those crimes, then yes they are now violent criminals. Maybe it was unnecessary extra commentary, but do you disagree with either of these statements?

I should try the words-in-mouth game, it seems fun.

Are you trying to say just because they aren't automatically violent, means they can't be violent? How could you say a thing like that? You are such a foolish person.

Man, that was fun.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#130

Post by rz2k » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 8:44 PM UTC

toufka wrote: post #16

bane wrote: 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…

Though I think it is widely regarded as unseemly to treat people differently according to a ranking of professions or wealth, the US is not actually a classless society, and in many social settings certain amounts of deference are expected as the default even when people are off the clock. With the number of parties this time of year, if you look for it it can be a little ugly.

Another example that readily comes to mind is the comments in response to Mario Batali suggesting bankers as Time man of the year in the vein of Hitler and Mussolini a couple years ago. Many of those comments, rather than focusing on the quip being offensive or stupid, primarily complained that he should be more deferential to a great portion of his restaurant customers.

Throughout history many artists have criticized their patrons, and today there's the widely claimed ideal of not penalizing everyone from unskilled workers to professionals and business owners for their political beliefs that are independent of their employers and customers, yet the reality is different even if sometimes manifests itself subtly.