I recently came across the news that, in Delhi, for the first time in many years, the number of girls born was higher than the number of boys.
Having long campaigned against a cultural discrimination towards baby girls which has led to a growth in the aborting of female foetuses, campaigners said figures, which showed that in 2008 1,004 girls were born for every 1,000 boys, could mark a break-through.
Dr Dharm Prakash of the Indian Medical Association, which ran a campaign against aborting girl foetuses, said: “The community has responded to our request that girls should be born.” Selective abortion has been illegal for years, but the practice remains rife. There are often reports of police raiding clinics where such operations are performed. In 2007, police in Gurgaon, a satellite city of Delhi, arrested a doctor after the remains of up to 35 foetuses were discovered in his clinic. The government has estimated that up to 10 million girls have been killed, before or immediately after birth, by their parents over the past 20 years.
In Delhi, some credit for the turn-around has been given to the local government’s so-called Ladli scheme. Under this project, the government deposits 10,000 rupees (£125) on the the birth of a baby girl and makes subsequent payments as she passes through school. The money is used for further education or to pay for a wedding and setting up home. (link)
In total, the Delhi government is committing to spend Rs. 1 Lakh (~$2000) to support families that give birth to girls. As I understand it, the program is limited to lower income families.
Livemint raises questions about whether the “Ladli” program, which was only initiated in the spring of 2008 itself, could have become so instantly successful. In a way, it would be even better if it wasn’t the government-financed program, as that might suggest that behaviors were starting to change on their own, at least in Delhi.
For the curious, here is the Delhi government’s web page outlining the guidelines for the Ladli scheme.
(See Abhi’s previous post for grim statistics on female foeticide in India, and indeed, around the world.)
The Ladli Laxmi Yojana was first implemented in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, about 2 years back, and has demonstrated success in addressing the gender imbalance.
Kumar Ji – Seems it was started in MP – first. 🙂 I think it will take a while before the stats come out on this how far this scheme goes to address gender imbalance (maybe you have seen something – I did not). Govt. of MP is claiming that it is already impacting the gender imbalance – it could be that they are looking at an increase in the number of parents who are filing the applications, which could be simply due to higher awareness amongst people. This is a great scheme. The states where this started are governed by BJP so national media coverage is somewhat sketchy.
Sulabh,
You are right. MP was the first state to begin this, followed by Gujarat.BJP had proposed nation-wide implementation of this yojana if voted to power.
Good to know this has been launched in Delhi as well.
I don’t have first hand information, but I asked a BJP worker during the general election campaign about how success in the yojana is being measured.He gave me some data points about increased number of infant girls compared to previous years.I don’t remember the exact numbers for MP though.
I’ve been hearing about this for a few weeks now, and I’m extremely excited that this change is finally happening. But I’m going to reserve judgment on the ‘success’ of the program until these gains are sustained. One swallow does not a summer make.
Here is another perspective about the positive change in the sex-ratio in Delhi in this blog: KUDIMAARI [female feticide/infantificide: a Regional (Punjab) and Religional (Sikhism) perspective]
http://mistersingh.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/good-bad-and-ugly/
SO ‘it happens only in India’ – a government incentive offered to parents who don’t kill their own children!!
Once again I feel like the atheist / agnostic who is more informed on religion than many of those who consider themselves orthodox – from Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji himself as written in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji:
“From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived; to woman he is engaged and married. Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come. When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound. So why call her bad? From her, kings are born. From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all. O Nanak, only the True Lord is without a woman.”
“A woman, is the favourite in her parental home, loved dearly by her father and mother. In the home of her in-laws, she is the pillar of the family, the guarantee of its good fortune… Sharing in spiritual wisdom and enlightenment and with noble qualities endowed, a woman, the other half of man, escorts him to the door of liberation.”
This is stuff being written over 500 years ago for jeebus’ sake….we even spoke out against sati and allowed the remarriage of widows to help eliminate it. We also spoke out against infanticide back then.
The same could be asked regarding the remaining issues with caste among Sikhs (ie, young NRI Punjabis bragging that they were Jatts) – even though it is against the main, specific tenets of their faith.
So my question is – what the heck happened ??
Did the militant shift we chose at the time due to attacks / invasion affect the culture and followers ? Did the influence of the majority religion and or culture around us for the last half millennia have more of an affect than our own religion ? Have the economic factors just been too strong (even though it states in the article that we are prosperous) ?
Thoughts / ideas – Amardeep – what do you think ?
Please no trolls / cynicism.
You make it sound as if speaking out against casteism or sati was solely a Sikh thing.
Not at all – not saying we’re taking credit for it – just that this was specifically discussed and advocated against – so – what happened ? Nothing in my above comment is intended to make a claim for moral superiority whatsoever.
GurMando,
So my question is – what the heck happened ??
Here is what I wrote along those lines a couple of years ago:
Sikhs like to talk a big game about gender equality, but most of the time it’s just talk. Patriarchal institutions like dowry are still quite widespread amongst the Sikh community in India, for one thing. And worse: Punjab, as many people will know, has the highest male/female birth ratio in all of India, due to rampant female foeticide. It’s hard to talk about gender equality when that is going on. (link)
I still pretty much feel that way.
The thing is, most religious traditions are formulated specifically to address the social ills going on at the time. They will either set codes of conduct to ensure that the social structure is as beneficial to everyone involved as possible or just call for eliminating it outright. When you said “Did the influence of the majority religion and or culture around us for the last half millennia have more of an affect than our own religion ?” I interpreted that to mean that you consider Sikhism to be something separate from the rest of Indian culture when it was, in fact, born of and a party to everything that was going on Indian culture at the time. It wasn’t sequestered off in its own corner.
Thanks Amardeep for the old post ( I myself never liked the idea of the Pope / Vatican setup we have with the Akal Takhat and their edicts ‘exiling’ people or making statements on tables and chairs).
But what do you think the historical / sociological reasons are for this mentality for big talk / no game ? Specifically when it was such a main part of the faith – especially the equality aspects.
Was it always a big part? I suspect there might be a case of anachronistically superimposing the emphases of modern times over the past.
The equality aspect is a huge part of the faith – not a matter of retro-active interpretation.
The main tenets of the faith have to do with religious equality among hindus, muslims, sikhs, etc. The gurudwaras are open to all with doors facing each direction – free langar for every visitor. The tenth Guru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji specifically had a ceremony where 5 men from different castes drank from the same bowl – unheard of at the time. Our middle names are meant to be cultural equalizers – I could go on – but the equality aspects are supposed to be a large aspect of the faith – as evidenced by the quotes I included above.
Other way round this would be considered an “anti-secular” statement by the venerated SM INTERN. I guess rules are different for groupies.
Only delusional supremacist think that female infanticide, dowry, domestic violence against women are problems emanating from a MAJORITY religion. These problems are cultural, simply aligning with a ‘pure’ faith would never change the behavior of a community.
A female traveler will feel safer in Mumbai with stranger male co-passengers than with a contingent of Punjab Policemen in Nangal.
You can have that kind of nominal equality without actually making everyone equal. Kind of like how every citizen of France is a “Frenchman.” What is an important part of a religion to the informed or to the clergy does not necessarily translate to the laity. The folk religion that gets informally passed along is usually very different from what is written.
My god – I never said they were issues emanating ONLY from the ‘majority’ religion – I asked how the majority religion OR culture has over-ridden the basic tenets of equality which are supposed to be a part of Sikhism.
Caste structure as well as sati were a part of the Hindu faith and culture at the time – that is a historical fact, not a supremacist statement.
In terms of the clergy or laity – there is nothing in the writings of the Gurus which state that anyone can learn or interpret the faith for themselves – we are not supposed to have a specific caste or class of religious elites – anyone can learn the religion – anyone can have a temple in their home.
Correction: there is nothing in the writings of the Gurus which state that anyone CAN’T learn or interpret the faith for themselves
Boorish behavior, domestic abuse and female infanticide must be part of ______ faith, if you go by the recent history of Punjab.
FYI : Sati was never a part of Sanatan Dharm – others may educate on this fact with quotes and stuff.
This post was about something which is very very positive. I don’t want to ruin it for others too.
I am done arguing with you, no need to respond.
bye
Gurmando, just so you understand. All the good Indian stuff: it’s thanks to Hinduism. All the bad stuff: it’s just part of the “culture”, and is nothing to do with Hinduism.
I am not anti-Hindu whatsoever – I was just going by historical research – never stated that Hinduism is ‘bad’ – I completely agree with the religion vs culture statement – which is what prompted my original question. Perhaps I should change the statement to majority culture, not majority religion. Apologies for any confusion / offense.
But not everyone will, so by nature you are going to have some minority of people who are more keen on reading scripture and a majority that is much more lukewarm.
Not really. For one thing, there is no Hindu scriptural basis for sati and even the most supportive gurus only said that a wife who chooses to do so is praiseworthy for her devotion, not that it should be a mandatory act. Beyond that, in South India sati was almost never practiced. It was customary only in certain parts of India, primarily in the Punjab.
As for the caste structure, there is a difference between caste (varna), caste (jati), and casteism which you would do well to avoid conflating. All Hindu scriptures and gurus that I know of decried invidious discrimination based on caste and beyond that, they speak only of varna, that is the differing roles belonging to different people based on their innate natures. The jati, is more like a tribal identity rooted in kin-based social organizations.
Oh wait – I completely missed Rahul’s sarcasm…..
There are a few matrilineal Hindu and Jain societies where females are very much valued and wanted since the family line continues with them. The Nairs, the Tuluva Jains and Bunts, and the Khasis up North.
Caste is not an Indian word. It is derived from Portuguese, casta:”Casta is a Portuguese and Spanish term used in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries mainly in Spanish America to describe as a whole the mixed-race people which appeared in the post-Conquest period. In English, the term casta also refers to the colonial Spanish American system of social stratification based on a person’s racial heritage that evolved along with the rise in miscegenation. A parallel system of categorization based on the degree of acculturation to Hispanic culture, which distinguished between gente de razón (Hispanics) and gente sin razón (non-acculturated people), concurrently existed and worked together with the idea of casta….”
More on matrilineal societies in India: “India Main articles: Marumakkathayam and Aliya Kattu
Several communities in South India, especially in the state of Kerala and region of Tulu Nadu practise matrilineality. The system of inheritance is known as Marumakkathayam. It is exceptional in the sense that it was one of the few traditional systems in western historical records of India that gave women liberty and right to property. Under this system, women enjoyed respect, prestige, and power similar to that recorded for the women of Ancient Egypt.
In the matrilineal system, the family lives together in a tharavadu which is composed of a mother, her brothers and younger sisters, and her children. The oldest male member is known as the karanavar and is the head of the household, managing the family estate. Lineage is traced through the mother, and the children belong to the mother’s family. All family property is jointly owned. In the event of a partition, the shares of the children are clubbed with that of the mother. The karanavar’s property is inherited by his nephews and not his sons.
The Kerala rulers also followed the ‘Marumakkathayam’ system, where the throne is succeeded by the King’s sister’s children, rather than his own.
The Marumakkathayam system is not very common in Kerala these days for many reasons. Kerala society has become much more cosmopolitan and modern. Men seek jobs away from their hometown and take their wives and children along with them. In this scenario, a joint-family system is not viable. However, there still are a few tharavads that pay homage to this system. In some families(Nair/Nayar), the children carry the last name or surname of their mother instead of the father and are considered part of the mother’s family, and not the father’s. Tharavadu names are quite an important element of social standing.”
Female infanticide is a result of extreme patrilineality. Alleviating the financial cost of having a girl child will help reverse this trend.
A couple more matrilineal communities in India: “…the Ezhava, Nairs, and Kurichiyas of Kerala, India; Bunts, Billavas and Mogaveeras of Karnataka, Pillai caste in Nagercoil District of Tamil Nadu; the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo of Meghalaya, India…“
This is an awful program initiated by the BJP, another attempt to keep women down. If there were only 600 women to every 1000 men in India, all evils against women would end immediately. Dowry would be reversed, caste will become irrelevant, men would do all the housework and women would rule India. Damn you….BJP and your diabolical plans.
Varmas, the rulers of Kochi and Travancore, were also matrilineal.
Also, I just wanted to point out to the person who mentioned that dowry was a product of patriarchy. Out of all the communities in Kerala, the matrilineal communities give the most dowry, which is, in most cultures, the girl’s inheritance given to her at the time of marriage. Since women in matrilineal communities stay with their own family, the parents don’t feel the kind of loss of wealth that they do in patrilineal communities. And that’s where the dowry problem lies in most places in India. Because parents feel that a girl will take away their wealth when she gets married, while a son will bring wealth by his own work and through his wife’s dowry.
It boggles me how any and every topic here gets converted into a Hinduism bashing Vs defensive Hindutva.
1.Gender balance is good for the society.It is common sense.And here we have two BJP states and a Congress state implementing the Ladli Laxmi Yojana.It is too early to declare a resounding success, but the early indicators seem to show that this could be one of the ways to address the evil of female foeticide or infanticide.
2.Caste could have been a foreign word, but Indians did have a concept of birth-based privileges or discriminations, as did most other human societies.Irrespective of how ‘varna’ system worked earlier, it is a no brainer that for the past 200-300 years, casteism has been a feature of Indian society.And it is not just Hindus who practice caste in India.Muslims, Christians, and even Sikhs do.(Not sure about Buddhists though some Srilankan bro/sis here could comment on it).
An interesting point to keep in mind when discussing the success of this scheme is that it is a known scientific fact that the natural birth ratio in the population is slightly skewed towards males. I can’t remember the actual figures, but I think it is something like 940:1000. Therefore a reported ratio of 1004:1000 is highly suspicious.
What it would appear to indicate is a bias in reporting of births. The obvious scenario is that in the past not all births were reported or registered; now that there is a financial incentive, parents who would not normally have got births registered will now do so – but only if the child is female. Of course we can also have the case of couples from outside Delhi coming into Delhi specifically to report the birth of a girl child, but not doing so for boys.
This doesn’t mean that I think the scheme is a bad one, but I am skeptical about claims that it has changed behaviour so much that the actual birth ratio has gone up to scientifically unheard-of levels. More likely it has changed the willingness to report female births while actual infanticide levels are pretty similar.
Human beings want to keep their status for themselves and their families once attained. The Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Trumps Astors, etc… they all try to keep their family in high status. Inheriting class status is a universal human problem. Europe still has royalty and aristocracy. The European concept of “caste” was not what the religion Sanatana Dharma taught – it described Varna, which is individual. That distinction is important, not only because a religion has been wrongly accused of “caste,” but also because so many people including Hindus are unaware that the religion does not teach or advocate “caste” (inherited class status of groups) and that the misconception helps perpetuate it. I think it is a powerful way to remove adherence to inherited class status of groups among Hindus by showing them it has nothing to do with the religion. People are more likely to give up practices that are not actually from the religion than things that they have come to believe are from the religion. There is nothing wrong with either individual Varna, or communities aka Jatis. The problem lies if a community is tied to a class status. That link, which is not a religious, but very much a universal human tendency, is what needs to be broken.
From “A New History of India” by Stanley Wolpert (1989): “Such a process of expansion, settled agricultural production, and pluralistic integration of new peoples led to the development of India’s uniquely complex system of social organization, which was mistakenly labeled the caste system by the Portuguese. For what the Portuguese called “caste” in the sixteenth century was, in fact, the ideal Rig Vedic “class” (Varna) system of brahmins, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and shudras, whereas what Indians mean by caste is really a much more narrowly limited, endogamous group related by “birth” (jati).”
I thought that once the British came in they pretty much standardized inheritance through primogenitor, effectively eliminating or undermining any matrilineal systems throughout the subcontinent?
Sameer, [PERSONAL INSULT EDITED OUT BY SM INTERN. COME ON AMITABH, YOU KNOW BETTER.]
KHASIS AND OTHER TRIBES FROM MEGHALAYA AND THE NORTHEAST are not and have never been Hindu.
And for once I agree with Rahul (#20). His sarcasm was spot-on and perfect in this situation.
Hatakeswarat
Kamakhya
“Khasi Total population approx. 1,361,100 Regions with significant populations Meghalaya (India): 1,250,000 Assam (India): 29,000 West Bengal, Mizoram, Maharashtra, Tripura, Tamil Nadu, Arunachal Pradesh, Nicobar Islands (India): 3,100 Bangladesh: 79,000[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khasi&action=edit Languages
Khasian languages Religion
Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Hindu or Tribals with animistic elements Related ethnic groups
Khmers, Palaungs, Was, Kinh, Nicobarese and other Mon-Khmers”
So, the SM-intern/bloggers are not the irritated by the turn the comments are taking ? As long as the name calling and brandishing is against the majority country or religion (India and Hinduism in this case), there is no problem ? I know the SM-intern removed the expletives by Amitabh, with oh-so gentle scolding(” COME ON AMITABH, YOU KNOW BETTER”), without even a comment how these people are dragging the whole thread elsewhere and no threat of banning people as is done so often when talking about other religion and country ?
It’ll be nice if people quit talking about religion, and gets back to topic.
As a clarification – my questions / comments were never intended to insult or attack the ‘majority religion’. I have apologized and clarified that my questions were meant to be about the culture at the time and since. I am not in the habit of making troll like or inflammatory / hateful commentary, sarcastic or otherwise.
My question was intdended too seek answers regarding sociological and historical trends, not about religious superiority or scriptural meanings. Again – apologize for the confusion – not trying to sidetrack the thread or discussion.
I am optimistic about this too. This whole idea seems so crude ( as someone pointed out), however incentivising good behavior is one sure shot way to mold behavior of a community. In the short term this would ensure the survival of the girl child – in the longer term this might (to an extent) empower the girl as she reaches maturity.
For a girl child in India life can be pretty miserable. Even after a girl is able to survive infancy and reach adolescence she has very little control over her life. In many middle/lower middle class families girls are de facto – cooks, maids, baby sitters and first in line to fetch water from the municipal tap. All these responsibilities leave them with very little time for education and very little energy for ambition.
If a girl hits the jackpot and gets to go to college – she has to deal with lecherous men and obnoxious male professors. Even in 21st century quite a few curmudgeon University administrators believe that it is the girl’s responsibility to mitigate boorish behavior exhibited by men. e.g. Jeans Banned in University. Similar “dress codes” have been enforced in Anna University too.
I really hope that with this scheme girls in India will catch a well deserved break.
There are many reasons that the plight of girls are so poor in India. Here are some prevalent practices I can think of: 1. Dowry: A lot of parents view their girl child as huge expenses right from birth because of this evil practice. Things are getting better with more women getting educated and opting to choose their own groom (a.k.a. love marriage). But it really feels disgusting to me when educated women allow their parents to gift the grooms family with cars and other expensive gifts: they may surely be able to afford it but they are helping to perpetuate a bad tradition that will haunt people who cannot afford it.
Sons as safety nets: Many Indians unfortunately bring up their son as their safety net for older days, with the lack of a proper social security system. Parents with only girl child are in mortal fear of dying old and alone in old age. With the change of joint family system into smaller families, this feeling has acutely increased. However people don’t realize that sons are also moving away because of jobs.
False sense of (dis)honor: People of all strata feel they have to be more guarded if they have a daughter because if the daughter misbehaves (runs away with someone, has an affair) or is sexually assaulted then it their honor that is hurt. With a son, none of the above seem to apply to a great extent (except probably doing drugs).
I really hope success of Ladli persists….
“KHASIS AND OTHER TRIBES FROM MEGHALAYA AND THE NORTHEAST are not and have never been Hindu.”
Khasis have rites that could pass as Hinduism, the ancient boa constrictor that swallows every sub-identity, but like most people in the NE they don’t consider themselves Hindus or even Indians (not consciously)
“The ancient Meghalayans mixed their spiritual beliefs of Animism and ancestor-worship with Hinduism.[5] In caves, the images of Shiva and Durga are visible.[6]”
Do keep in mind that Shiva and Durga by some accounts are said to pre-date Vedic Hinduism. So again they are not Hindus by the common Varna definition, but could qualify as Hindus the same way the worshipers of Kartikeya are Hindus today. I hope that is what you meant. Cheers.
Empoverish the state of Utah and then give me enough money, commercial isolation, and federal neglect and I can have the state’s entire Mormon population testifying that they aren’t Christian and aren’t American.
Thanks Yoga Fire, for your sympathetic view. But its not as simple. There are enough railroads to carry Oil and Uranium mined out of our lands by the Indian State, that seems to draw a blank when it comes to bringing jobs and infrastructure to our populations. I am afraid the utility of the people of NE to the Indian State is dependent on the endowments of the region, and it will cease, once the inexhaustable resources cease. We don’t make a sizable population to influential in a democracy the size of India anyway. But thankfully then we will be free. Or maybe the Chinese will annex us and quash the personal liberties we now allegedly enjoy under the AFSPA, but atleast we will have jobs and will be spared discrimination for looking different and our women wearing western clothes etc. But talking of women, and in regard to the topic of this thread, in some ways we are WAY better off than the mainland. Our women, especially girl babies have a higher life expectancy and we are spared the kind of indignities the poor in the mainland have to endure (overcrowding, class based discrimination, and the heat, The HEAT!)
This has always been a significant problem with the Indian State, it sucks when it comes to economic development for everyone. Those populations throughout the country that never had adequate schooling or infrastructure or healthcare persist in being ignorant, poor, and sickly. The state has failed all of them everywhere, not just in the NE. It’s just that some parts of India were sufficiently commercialized prior to the license Raj that they were able to prosper. So you see wealth in other parts of the country, but it is in spite of the center’s mismanagement, not because of it.
It does suck that the Center doesn’t do enough to protect the environment, patrol the border, or develop the economy in the North East. But ask yourself whether it becomes more likely or less likely for the government to give a hoot if the denizens of those lands keep insisting that they aren’t Indian at all? It’s more likely succeed if one were to agitate from a position of “We are Indian and entitled to our due” rather than “We’re not Indian and would rather you go away.” After all, the persistent ethnic and religiously motivated insurrections in the North East make rural development in that area even more difficult than it already was.
“It does suck that the Center doesn’t do enough to protect the environment, patrol the border, or develop the economy in the North East. But ask yourself whether it becomes more likely or less likely for the government to give a hoot if the denizens of those lands keep insisting that they aren’t Indian at all? It’s more likely succeed if one were to agitate from a position of “We are Indian and entitled to our due” rather than “We’re not Indian and would rather you go away.”
Believe me I have known a lot of NE who went to Delhi to study with those lofty, idealistic ideas about their Indianness. All of them sobered up when nobody rented their homes out to them, or when they were eve teased at bus stops in public view or remarked upon like zoo animals bereft of personal dignity. Even stoned. And Govts don’t care for such sentimental issues beyond their utility of rhetoric to mobilize vote-banks. Its just the nature of democratic governments (influencing upon which, as I said in the last post, we have no safety in numbers) Consider the result of this recent Jul 09′ survey by the North East support group that quizzed NEs in Delhi:
78.75% of those who face racial discrimination say that they are treated like strangers in their own land. 22.5% faced physical attacks, 3.75% sexual assaults, 35% vulgar remarks and 38.75% no comments source: http://www.countercurrents.org/chandra100709.htm
Thats an astounding number of physical attacks and sexual assaults just for looking different. Its more than misunderstanding, misunderstandings don’t incite physical violence or assaults. It is hatred, pure and simple, atavistic or China-related, I don’t know. I don’t think the Indian state will ever bridge that perceptual gap between the mainlanders and the NEs. Going by its past record of execution, and its backlog of concerns about the mainlanders, who irrespective of the official position, have the first right to resources – its never going to happen. Why should NEs patiently suffer this debasement. Its the 21st century, when man has squeezed millions of transistors onto wafers that size of a thumbnail, and freedom as a birthright is widely known and is expected. Without meaning ill to the India we are better off with China (We look like them, right?) atleast Communism guarantees equality in theory. With the slow moving and charachterless Indian state there are no guarantees. But its still a pipe-dream for now as your boots on the ground have us by the neck. But freedom for the NE is an inevitability, I am saying it without any associated sentiment. Its just a natural denouement of the current situation.
Talk to any Indian woman and they will attest to the prevalence of eve-teasing and sexual assaults. But who do you think was more effective at getting civil rights for America’s Blacks? MLK or Malcolm X?
You know, in America we still have people out in the Deep South insisting that the Confederacy shall rise again. As realistic a sentiment as it may have seemed back in the early 1900s, they are today generally dismissed as cranks.
yes, the people in the north east are equivalent to the people in the deep south. well said. history and geopolitics FAIL.
I am increasingly saddened that they took the analogies section out of the SATs.