logo
No, Mamdani Isn't ‘Uncivilised' for Eating with his Hands

No, Mamdani Isn't ‘Uncivilised' for Eating with his Hands

The Wire5 hours ago
A recent social media clash between liberals and conservatives surrounding US Congressman Brandon Gill's insult aimed at New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has reignited an old, unresolved question: what does it mean to be 'civilised'?
Gill, the youngest Republican representative from Texas, tweeted – with smug confidence – that Americans use forks and spoons because they are 'civilised'. This was in context to a video interview in which Mamdani was seen eating Biryani with his hand.
The subtext was loud and clear: eating with one's hands, as many in Asia, Africa, and other 'non-Western' parts of the world do, is somehow primitive or uncultured.
But such a view isn't just arrogant – it reeks of historical amnesia and the hangover of colonial thinking. Eating habits aren't a measure of progress; they are shaped by weather, geography, tradition and spiritual philosophy. Treating them as a civilisation test is not only silly – it is a form of cultural bullying.
Civilisation is what people make of it
To understand how we got here, it is worth pausing to reconsider the word "civilised'. Who decides what counts as civilised, and who gets left out?
The sociologist Norbert Elias tried to answer this back in the 1930s. He argued that ideas of "civilised" behaviour are not eternal truths – they change over time, depending on who's in power and what's considered respectable. In medieval Europe, people of all classes, even nobles, used their hands or a knife to eat. Forks came much later, introduced from the East – through trade routes, contact with Islamic cultures and Byzantine influence. At first, they were treated with suspicion. Some even thought them ungodly.
Forks didn't become common until the 17th or 18th centuries, and even then, it wasn't about hygiene – it was about class. The fork became a symbol not of advancement, but of status – something the elite could use to show they were different from the poor.
If that's what 'civilised' means, then maybe we need to rethink the word.
The culture behind eating with hand
In large parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East, eating with hands is not just normal – it's a meaningful act. In Indian traditions, food is seen as sacred, and eating with your hands brings the body and mind closer to it. In Ayurveda, it's believed to help digestion and engage the senses.
In Islamic culture, the Prophet Muhammad encouraged eating with the right hand – a gesture of respect and cleanliness. In Ethiopia, meals like injera are shared by hand, symbolising love and community. Across Southeast Asia, in countries like Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, eating with one's hand is tied to custom and comfort.
This isn't about being 'undeveloped' but about being connected – to food, to people, to culture. In fact, the industrial dining practices that we now associate with modernity – eating alone, in a hurry, with a metal tool – often feel cold and isolating, by comparison.
Still stuck in the Orientalist gaze
Brandon Gill's tweet is not a harmless opinion – it fits neatly into a pattern that Edward Said called Orientalism. Said showed how Western powers, especially during colonial times, painted the East as strange, backwards and inferior – not to understand it, but to dominate it.
One of the easiest ways to do this was through food. Eating with your hands? That became shorthand for dirty or uncultured. The fork, by contrast, was held up as a badge of civilisation. It's a double standard that persists in the classroom, in pop culture, in airports, and apparently, even in the US Congress.
A fork doesn't define civilisation
Historian Dipesh Chakrabarty, in his critique of how we treat Europe as the centre of history, reminds us that no single region gets to define what progress looks like for the rest of the world.
India had rich traditions around food, hygiene and community dining long before forks appeared in Europe. Ancient texts like the Mahabharata (fictional) describe detailed rituals around meals – handwashing, sitting on the floor, sharing food with guests – all of which were seen as civilised and sacred.
In China, chopsticks developed alongside a cuisine that suited them. In the Americas, indigenous societies had their own unique food cultures that didn't need forks or knives. The idea that civilisation requires a fork is laughably narrow, and false.
Table manners as tools of control
During British rule in India, colonial officers often ridiculed hand-eating. It wasn't just about different habits – it was about asserting power. Indians were told their way was wrong, dirty, uncivilised. Victorian table manners were taught in schools.
Cutlery wasn't about convenience; it was about obedience.
Anthropologist Franz Boas once said that no culture can be judged by another's standards. What matters is the context. The British weren't sharing etiquette tips – they were using manners as weapons to make Indian subjects feel ashamed of themselves.
That's not civilisation – that's domination.
Science catches up
Today, scientific studies show that eating with your hands can help digestion and encourage mindful eating. Your fingers can sense temperature and texture, making you more aware of what you're consuming. Many nutritionists now suggest that sensory eating helps people feel full sooner and make better food choices.
Ironically, the fork – often treated as the ultimate tool of refinement – may make us eat faster and less consciously. So much for being 'civilised'.
Food, race and respect
In his book The Ethnic Restaurateur, Krishnendu Ray talks about how immigrant food is often loved but the people behind it are not.
When Donald Trump cooked and served French fries at McDonald's with his bare hands – to appease to the working class – he was praised. But when Zohran Mamdani, with his brown, working-class hands, touches rice, he is judged, humiliated and called uncivilised.
Clearly, there's a double standard at play here.
It's not about forks or fingers — it's about power, race, and respect. The same biryani, eaten with a fork, becomes exotic and Instagrammable. Eaten with fingers, however, it becomes a joke. That says more about our prejudices than about the food.
What is civilisation, after all?
If civilisation means dignity, compassion, curiosity and openness to other ways of life, then eating with a fork or your fingers does not make one more or less civilised.
And if using a fork were the gold standard, then Donald Trump, a man who eats KFC with silverware in a gold-plated room, would top the chart. But given his other track record: mocking a disabled reporter, inciting a violent mob, cutting off aid to Ukraine during wartime, demeaning women and minorities regularly – is that civilisation?
As former UN under-secretary-general and Congress leader Shashi Tharoor recently pointed out – though he stopped short of actually calling the him uncivilised – that he does not consider the Trump the most uncivilised president he has ever encountered.
'I was going to say uncivilised, but I thought that might not be polite,' he said in an interview, adding,
'I had the great honour of meeting four or five American presidents … these are people of a certain class, a certain distinction. But there was a certain political heft, statesman‑like gravitas and intellectual quality that I find woefully lacking in this gentleman.'
Trump even had the Resolute Desk 'temporarily' removed from the Oval Office, reportedly because a child wiped their nose on it. A few days later, he humiliated the Ukrainian president in public while delaying crucial aid. If this is what civilisation looks like, maybe we need to start asking different questions.
Brandon Gill, who idolises Trump, should consider this: the real threat to civilisation isn't a man eating rice with his fingers. It's a world where cruelty is called strength and ignorance is passed off as pride.
A truly civilised person is one who stands up for human dignity, the marginalised sections of society, and the underprivileged nations of the world – not the one who targets them with a capitalist, business-driven mindset.
Civility has nothing to do with what's on your plate or how you eat – it's about how you use the power you hold. And real power demands restraint, empathy and respect – not angry outbursts in one of the most important rooms in the world.
Abhijay A is policy analyst and independent researcher specialising in international relations, public policy and global diplomacy.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration in controversial deportation case
US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration in controversial deportation case

Hindustan Times

time27 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

US Supreme Court sides with Trump administration in controversial deportation case

The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy's ruling.(Bloomberg) The decision comes after the court's conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. The court's latest decision makes clear that the South Sudan flight can complete the trip, weeks after it was detoured to a naval base in Djibouti, where the migrants who had previously been convicted of serious crimes were held in a converted shipping container. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the flight would be completed quickly, and they could be in South Sudan by Friday. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy's ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight 'unenforceable.' The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket. Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that while she disagreed with the original order, it does countermand Murphy's findings on the South Sudan flight. Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war. 'We know they'll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday. The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.' McLaughlin called Thursday's decision 'a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people." Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the US and had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue that they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country, even if they've already exhausted their legal appeals. The men and their guards have faced rough conditions on the naval base in Djibouti, where authorities detoured the flight after Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal. They have since expressed a fear of being sent to South Sudan, Realmuto said.

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: How it impacts child tax credit and student loans
Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: How it impacts child tax credit and student loans

Hindustan Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: How it impacts child tax credit and student loans

President Donald Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' passed in the US Congress on Thursday as the House GOP managed to edge past the Democrats with 218 voting in favor to 214 against, including two GOP Congressmen who went against the party line. The bill, which is expected to significantly affect everyday Americans, has been sent to Trump to be signed into law before his self-imposed deadline of July 4. President Donald Trump walks to board his motorcade vehicle at the North Portico of the White House, Thursday, July 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)(AP) Trump's tax and spending bill lays out certain cuts and breaks in federal assistance to Americans, while increasing security spending and introducing massive tax breaks. Two of the key areas that will see change under Trump's new bill are child tax credits and student loans. Here's how these two areas are set to be affected: Child Tax Credit President Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' increases the child tax credit for Americans from $2000 per child to $2200. The move, supposedly aligning with the "pro-life" stance of the Trump administration, has faced criticism from experts who have argued that the $200 increase is still too low as the amount was never revised to adjust for inflation since it was introduced in 2018. Notably, the child tax credit was increased to $3000 per child ( and an additional $600 for younger children) during the pandemic. But that move was temporary, and the child tax credit was reverted to $2,000 once the pandemic normalized. Also read: What's in Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared Congress today Student Loans The Big Beautiful Bill makes a number of changes in the provisions for federal assistance to borrowing for education. First up, the bill has reduced the number of repayment plans that borrowers can opt for to just two: the Repayment Assistance Plan and the standard repayment plan. However, the bill says that those who have already chosen a repayment plan under the previous option will be able to keep it, except for those under the SAVE plan. SAVE plan borrowers will have to opt for one of the new plans under the Big Beautiful Bill. Note: The changes will affect borrowers taking loans on July 1, 2026, or after.

After military strikes, US planning to hold nuclear talks with Iran in Oslo next week: Report
After military strikes, US planning to hold nuclear talks with Iran in Oslo next week: Report

Hindustan Times

time28 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

After military strikes, US planning to hold nuclear talks with Iran in Oslo next week: Report

The United States is reportedly planning to hold nuclear talks with Iran in Oslo next week, according to a report by Axios. The meeting, reportedly between Witkoff and Araghchi, would mark the first direct talks between both countries after US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites.(Reuters/ Kremlin Pool Photo via AP) The proposed meeting would bring together White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi for discussions on reviving stalled nuclear negotiations, sources familiar with the matter told the outlet. If confirmed, it would mark the first direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the US struck three nuclear sites in Iran last month. However, neither country has officially confirmed the meeting, and a final date has yet to be set, Axios added. This comes hours after the US Department of Defence said that Iran's nuclear programme had been set back by at least a year, as per news ANI. Sean Parnell, chief spokesperson of the Pentagon, said that the intelligence assessments in the department estimated that Iran's nuclear programme has faced withdrawal by 'one to two years'. Iranian president orders suspension of cooperation with IAEA Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Wednesday reportedly ordered suspension of cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This came after the country's parliament passed a law to this effect, which was given the go-ahead by a constitutional watchdog, the Associated Press reported. Araghchi took to X to slam the United Nations' nuclear watchdog. "After years of good cooperation with the IAEA—resulting in a resolution which shut down malign claims of a 'possible military dimension' (PMD) to Iran's peaceful nuclear program—my country is once again accused of 'non-compliance','Araghchi said. The Iranian foreign minister said that instead of engaging with the country at the IAEA, 'the E3 is opting for malign action against Iran'. Nuclear experts' warning after US strikes on Iran The US claims that Iran's uranium stockpile – 400 kilograms of which is reportedly 60% enriched – is inaccessible and 'sealed off from the outside world' due to the damage after American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. However, nuclear proliferation experts believe that these strikes could make Iran take a more dangerous path to obtaining nuclear arms, as per an ABC News report. Apart from IAEA, Iran is also mulling withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT), which says that countries other than those certified as nuclear powers cannot develop nuclear weapons.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store