Latest news with #EndWokeness
New York Times
17-07-2025
- Entertainment
- New York Times
‘Superman' Is MAGA Kryptonite
I've grown to dislike the word assimilation. When we talk about immigration, the better word is adoption, and it took a superhero movie to help me understand why. That movie is 'Superman.' Like virtually everything else in America, 'Superman' got caught up in the culture war. In the days before the movie's release, its director, James Gunn, warned that not everyone would love his film. 'I mean, Superman is the story of America,' Gunn told a British newspaper. 'An immigrant that came from other places and populated the country, but for me it is mostly a story that says basic human kindness is a value and is something we have lost.' Let's pause for a moment. From the beginning, the Superman story has been a story of an interstellar immigrant who becomes so fundamentally decent and courageous that he is the fictional ideal of 'truth, justice and the American way.' So when Gunn says that his story is about 'basic human kindness,' the first thought I had was, 'Yeah, sounds like he made a Superman movie.' Cue the outrage on the right. In a segment on Fox News, the chyron read 'Superwoke.' Jesse Watters, a Fox News host, joked that Superman was going to wear an MS-13 cape. Another Fox News host, Greg Gutfeld, said that Gunn was trying to build 'a moat of woke, enlightened opinion around him.' (When it comes to MAGA bodies of water, I think I prefer 'moat of woke' to 'Gulf of America.') A popular X account called End Wokeness, which has 3.7 million followers, posted a headline with part of Gunn's quote about immigration and kindness and wrote, 'Hollywood literally never learns.' What should Hollywood learn? That kindness and decency are for suckers, and the best place for Superman isn't with his family in Kansas or in his Fortress of Solitude, but rather behind a fence, trapped in Alligator Alcatraz? I saw the movie on opening night. I have a longstanding tradition — I see every new superhero movie as soon as I can, on the biggest screen that I can. I enjoyed every second of it — it was funny, it was fun, and it absolutely celebrated decency and kindness. But as the credits rolled, I had a single dominant thought: 'Superman' is a movie about adoption, and if adoption is woke, then consider me woke. I'm going to share spoilers, so you might want to save this newsletter and read it after you watch the movie, but one of the pivotal revelations of the movie is that Superman learns that he wasn't sent to Earth to serve humanity, but to rule over us all and to preserve the Kryptonian race by forming a harem of human women. In most versions of the Superman story, including the 1978 Christopher Reeve 'Superman' and the 2013 Zack Snyder version, 'Man of Steel,' the titular character is sent from the dying planet Krypton explicitly to help and protect us. Superman's parents are good and decent people who love their son. That's what you believe at the start of this movie as well. To calm him in times of crisis, Superman watches a partial video clip salvaged from the wreck of his spacecraft that seems to depict his parents as kind beings who direct him to serve the people of Earth. But the movie's villain, Lex Luthor, and his allies recover the rest of the footage — in which Superman's parents direct him to conquer Earth — and share it with the rest of the world. All at once, he loses his sense of self. A mob gathers in Metropolis, and the same people he's loved and served now scream for him to go. So he flies away, back home to Kansas, to his adopted family. In many versions of the Superman story, his earthly father dies when Superman is a child. In this version, his father and mother are still very much alive. They embrace him, and his father tells him that only Superman can define his character. He is not destined to follow the path his biological parents set. In a confrontation between Superman and Luthor, just when Luthor is trying to treat him as inherently dangerous and inescapably alien, Superman responds with a passionate declaration: 'They've always been wrong about me. I love. I get scared. But that is being human, and that's my greatest strength.' In the movie, Superman did everything we could ever ask of an immigrant. He assimilated. But had he been adopted? By his family, yes, but what about by his nation? Think for a moment of the immigrant experience. If you're a child, you come without your consent. You find yourself in a place that you've never known. Even if you're an adult, and you want to make America your home, you start out in a state of isolation and vulnerability. Is it any wonder that new immigrants often create or seek out ethnic enclaves? From the Irish and Italian quarters of cities in the 19th century to the barrios of the 20th and 21st centuries, immigrants can ease into their new life by holding onto remnants of the old. We look at immigrants and often demand that they assimilate. Be like us, we say. Conform to our culture. And that's usually an easy ask — after all, adult immigrants want to be here. They want to participate in American life. For children, assimilation tends to happen quickly. Immigrant children who grow up in America quickly become more American than they are Mexican or Nigerian or Polish. Assimilation doesn't mean abandonment. There are millions of patriotic Americans who are also proud of their national heritages. When the waters of the Chicago River turn green on St. Patrick's Day, we celebrate with Irish Americans. Should Mexican Americans experience any less joy on Cinco de Mayo? When I served in Iraq, I served with immigrant soldiers who expressed pride in their homelands but fought in one uniform under one flag, and no one in our squadron ever questioned where their ultimate loyalties lay. But if we ask immigrants to assimilate, then our nation has its own obligation. We must adopt them. If we want immigrants to love us, then it is our sacred obligation to love them back. Nations can't love immigrants like adoptive parents love their children, but there is a parallel — a nation can tell a person, 'You are one of us.' That doesn't mean that we open our borders to anyone who wants to come. Of course we should regulate the flow of immigrants into our country. Too many people arriving too quickly can overwhelm social services, strain local economies and create the conditions for rivalry and conflict that destabilize our politics. But our default posture should be one of open arms. We should take immense pride that people want to come here. And we should welcome as many as we can reasonably absorb. This is our national heritage, marred though it is by sometimes-long periods of backsliding. This is all very personal to me. I'm an adoptive father of an immigrant daughter. And when I watched 'Superman,' my mind went back to one of the most important and touching moments of our lives. In 2010 — when America felt like a kinder nation — my family and I traveled to an orphanage in Ethiopia to pick up our Naomi, our beautiful, precious daughter. Families who have adopted internationally know that there are really two adoptions that take place — one is personal and one is national. I'll never forget either. The personal adoption happened when a nurse handed Naomi to us. Courts had already declared us to be her parents, but the adoption process is long and grueling, and you can legally become a child's parent before you've even met. It doesn't seem real until that moment when you first hug your child, and she hugs you back. That's a moment that imprints on every adoptive parent's heart. When you adopt a child overseas, America also adopts her as a citizen. When we adopted Naomi, she didn't just become a member of our family; she also became an American. But that's a cold legal fact. How can a nation love? A nation loves through its people. In the movie, Superman can't truly feel whole again until he feels the love of his neighbors. When did this nation love our Naomi? On Day 1. After the five of us left Ethiopia — we'd also brought our two older kids — we arrived at J.F.K. in New York about as tired and emotional and jet-lagged as a family could be. I was nervous about Customs. The paperwork for international adoptions can be astonishingly complex, and the slightest mistake can lead to very long delays. I walked up to a very serious-looking immigration officer and handed him a pile of documents. He went through them carefully and looked up. But he didn't look at me. He looked at Naomi, and his serious expression changed to a smile that radiated tenderness and warmth. 'Hello, little one,' he said. 'On behalf of the United States of America, welcome home.' Some other things I did Before I get into all this, I want to thank you. Last week, my newsletter was about the plight of young men in America, and I want to thank you for flooding my inbox with thoughtful, heartfelt and kind messages. I can't respond to them all, but I read them all, and you gave me much to reflect upon. I'm amazed at the depth of your knowledge and wisdom, and many of you shared powerful personal stories. Please keep your thoughts coming. Your words make me a better columnist and a better person. On Sunday, I wrote about the Epstein files, and the astonishing spectacle that we're witnessing as MAGA is tearing itself apart, and expressing concerns — serious concerns — about President Trump. Why would the Epstein files cause this chaos? The Epstein story mattered so much in MAGA circles because it was a key element in their indictment of America's so-called ruling class. Trump's appeal to the Republican base isn't just rooted in his supporters' extraordinary affection for the man; it's also rooted in their almost indescribably dark view of the American government. Why are they so keen to burn it all down? Well, if you believe your government is populated by people so depraved that they'd participate in and cover up the systematic sexual abuse of children, then you wouldn't just want them out of office; you'd want them prosecuted, imprisoned and maybe even executed. And you'd want all the power you'd need to make that happen. And if you believe that the ruling elites would abuse children, then they'd certainly be the kind of people who'd gin up a Russia hoax or try to steal an election in 2020. People who are that terrible are capable of anything. And if you wonder why MAGA turned on the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice, well, it's not just about the Russia investigation or the F.B.I. search of Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago. MAGA America also believed the F.B.I. was protecting pedophiles to preserve the status quo. On the right, the Epstein story became the thinking man's version of the QAnon conspiracy theory — the idea that American society was led by a gang of cannibalistic pedophiles. Whereas QAnon was rooted in the imaginary revelations of a shadowy figure who claimed Q security clearance, at least the Epstein story was rooted in some very grim, very real facts. On Saturday, we published my conversation with Michelle Cottle about Elon Musk's idea for a third party. My conclusion was simple: Musk has a good idea, but he's not the right person to execute it. Besides, wouldn't it be easier if the parties healed themselves? French: Well, of the third-party ideas, one part of the concept of the America Party is actually smarter than a lot of the other third-party ideas. I would then say Elon Musk is exactly the wrong person to implement it because he has a bipartisan sense of revulsion now. Because he has taken on Donald Trump and taken on MAGA. So a lot of Republicans really hate him. And when he switched from being a green techno-futurist to being Donald Trump's wealthiest acolyte, the left turned on him. So he's in many ways the least appealing person possible to start a third party because he's alienated both wings. He's been driven out of both wings. Cottle: He's a uniter, David. He's united everyone against him. French: Yes. It's the uniting against is the problem. However, this idea that we're not trying to sweep away everything, but win targeted races, so that there is a third party to contend with in the Senate, so that you can't have atrocities like the big, beautiful bill that just passed, where you can have some independent voices — I think there's actually some real promise to that idea. In part because it doesn't depend on, as many third parties do, with the man on the white horse coming in with all the fame and all the resources and triggering the last thing we need, which is yet another kind of populist revolution. Thank you for being a subscriber If you're enjoying what you're reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here. Have feedback? Send me a note at French-newsletter@ You can also follow me on Threads (@davidfrenchjag).
News18
13-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Unfamiliar To Westerners: Why We Eat With Our Hands And Why It's Not ‘Uncivilised'
From ancient traditions to modern misjudgments, why eating with hands shouldn't offend anyone. A video of Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old Democratic nominee for New York City's mayoral race in 2025, eating biryani with his bare hands has gone viral. But instead of focusing on the biryani or the man behind it, the internet has turned the spotlight on something else entirely – how he ate. While this simple, culturally-rooted act should have gone unnoticed, the comment section tells a different story. Flooded with racist, derogatory remarks – many from Western users – the video has sparked a larger conversation around cultural ignorance and the ongoing stigma associated with eating with hands. Zohran says his worldview is inspired by the 3rd world while eating rice with his hands — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 29, 2025 But Zohran Mamdani, son of acclaimed academic Mahmood Mamdani and veteran filmmaker Mira Nair, wasn't committing a crime. He was simply eating biryani the way he has likely done his entire life. In South Asian households, eating with hands isn't just common, it's meaningful. A Sacred Act, Not a Strange One Long before forks and knives entered Western dining rooms, ancient civilisations -from Egyptians and Mesopotamians to Greeks and people of the Indus Valley – ate with their hands. In India, this method is rooted in sacred traditions. The Vedas and Upanishads regard eating with hands as a mindful ritual that connects the body, mind, and food. Geography and Cuisine Go Hand in Hand Culturally and geographically, Indian food lends itself to this style – think fluffy rice, soft rotis, and richly spiced gravies best enjoyed by mixing and scooping with fingers. Every bite becomes personal, tailored to taste and texture. On the other hand, Western cuisine, often structured and mild, lends itself to knives and forks. But even in the West, hand-eating was once the norm. Forks appeared in southern Europe only around the 11th century, and it wasn't until the late 18th century that Americans began regularly using them. Earlier, spoons and hands were standard. Dining etiquette, particularly the use of cutlery, evolved not from hygiene but hierarchy. During medieval times, aristocrats used utensils as status symbols, and books like The Courtier turned etiquette into a class divider. Fast forward to today, and similar notions are being recycled on social media as 'proper" table manners. Hygiene Is Not the Issue, But Ignorance Is Critics often reduce eating with hands to a hygiene issue, but this ignores a long-standing tradition rooted in mindfulness, respect, and community. As cultural anthropologist Dr Aditi Verma explains, in Indian society, dining practices reflect deeper values – purity, gratitude, and social etiquette. Washing hands before and after meals has always been a part of the process, making cleanliness an intrinsic part of hand-eating, not an afterthought. Even beyond the plate, gestures made with the right hand in Indian culture reflect reverence, be it while exchanging money, offering something, or simply greeting someone. These aren't just habits; they're symbols of heritage and belonging. So, whether you prefer forks, chopsticks, or your fingers, the real takeaway is this: how someone eats is a reflection of who they are and where they come from. And there's no one right way to eat. As long as it's clean and respectful, let people enjoy their food, especially if it means finishing a good biryani by licking your fingers with joy. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
03-07-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Why Eating With Hands Is So Alien To The West, Why It Is Not To The Rest
Trigger Warning: Abusive comments ahead "Disgusting... like animals. I***F if it's culture... still disgusting." "Spoons exist for a reason, if you ask me." "That's f***ng psychotic - that's the same hand he literally wipes his a** with." "So unsanitary and 3rd world." "Animals such as dogs and cats and even ants etc. have better personal culture when eating than they do." If you're wondering where these are from, they're just a small sample from the thousands of racist, unfiltered, and dehumanising comments flooding social media in response to a now-viral video of Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old Democratic nominee for New York City's mayoral race in 2025, eating biryani with his bare hands. Zohran says his worldview is inspired by the 3rd world while eating rice with his hands — End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 29, 2025 Yes, you read that right. A man eating food with his hands. Not committing a crime, not making a policy blunder. Just eating, the way millions do around the world. Eating with hands may not be a practice familiar to the West, but ridiculing those who do things differently definitely seems to be. Mamdani, the son of Ugandan academic Mahmood Mamdani and Indian-American filmmaker Mira Nair, was raised in a household where hand-eating was not just accepted, it was the norm. Like in many South Asian homes, meals weren't just about nourishment. They were rituals of connection, of culture, of comfort. And here's the thing: Eating with hands isn't just a cultural quirk or family tradition. It's ancient, intentional, and, dare we say, more delicious (A study shows this too). Since The Oldest Civilisations Way before forks and knives strutted into European dining rooms, humans were already eating. And eating fine without them. The Egyptians, Greeks, Mesopotamians and, yes, the people of the Indus Valley Civilisation (around 2500 BCE), all ate with their hands. It wasn't messy or uncouth. It was a mindful way of consuming food, believed to prime the body for digestion. In fact, the sacred Indian texts, the Vedas and the Upanishads, mention eating with hands as a practice that aligns the body and spirit with the act of eating. Each bite becomes a sensory experience involving sight, smell, taste, and touch. Ayurveda, India's ancient medical system developed more than 3,000 years ago, reinforces this. Wellness expert Luke Coutinho also further explains that touch stimulates digestive enzymes and signals the body to prepare for nourishment. So, while cutlery may offer convenience, hands offer connection - to food, to tradition, and to self. Geography Shaped Our Plates It also comes down to food types. Indian cuisine, with its fluffy rice, soft breads, aromatic gravies and tangy pickles, lends itself beautifully to hand-eating. Mixing and scooping with fingers allows us to combine textures and flavours exactly the way we want, a piece of naan dipped just right into dal, or a portion of rice mashed with curry to perfect consistency. In contrast, much of Western food - think roasts, grilled meats, pastas (with less spices and flavour) - is structured, needing to be cut or portioned. Hence, the rise of knives and forks. But even in the West, hands weren't always shunned at the table. What The? Cutlery didn't always rule Western dining tables. Forks first appeared in southern Europe around the 11th century, gained some popularity in 14th-century Italy thanks to pasta, and slowly made their way across Europe. But they weren't always welcome. Many considered them unnecessary. In America, forks became commonplace only in the late 18th to early 19th century. Before that, early colonists mostly used spoons... and hands. That's right. Hand-eating was once done by Americans themselves. Formal dining etiquette, and the cutlery obsession that came with it, was largely a classist invention. In medieval and Renaissance Europe, aristocrats used forks and knives as markers of sophistication. Manuals like The Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione outlined elite table manners to separate the wealthy from the working class. Today, you can spot these 'royalty' people teaching on social media on the 'right' way to eat food items. View this post on Instagram A post shared by William Hanson (@williamhanson) Anyhoo, back to history. As the middle class grew, they mimicked the nobility, adopting these customs to climb the social ladder. In the US, women played a major role in establishing table etiquette within families, helping normalise cutlery use among the middle class. Distinctively, Americans developed a fork-switching method (cutting with the knife in the right hand, then switching the fork over to eat) a practice celebrated as uniquely "American". In contrast, Indian dining didn't evolve as a display of wealth or class but as an expression of spirituality and culture. Eating with hands wasn't about status - it was about sustenance. What About Chopsticks? And then there are chopsticks. Slender sticks of wood or metal that have travelled across continents to become symbols of elegance and finesse. Originally developed in China over 3,000 years ago, chopsticks were first used for cooking and serving. By around 400 AD, they evolved into the main utensil for eating, spreading to neighbouring countries like Japan, Korea and Vietnam. But much like the fork in Europe, chopsticks were once a marker of sophistication and class, associated with refined etiquette and deeply rooted cultural values. In Japan, chopsticks (hashi) are more than just tools, they're part of a dining philosophy. From the way food is prepared into bite-sized pieces to the rules about how you rest your chopsticks between bites, every gesture reflects mindfulness and respect for the meal. Using them incorrectly, like pointing them at someone or sticking them upright in a bowl of rice, is considered not only rude but spiritually inappropriate, as it mimics funeral rituals. In Korea, the tradition is different. Chopsticks are often made of metal, and they're used alongside a spoon, a practice believed to have originated in royal court dining. Meals are communal, laid out with many side dishes, and using both chopsticks and a spoon ensures shared food is handled delicately and respectfully. Today, chopsticks have shed their once "exotic" label in the West and are now celebrated as markers of taste and cosmopolitan flair. From sushi restaurants, ramen bars, to pan-Asian fine dining spots. Religion Too Now, back to our fork, knife, spoon and eating with hands debate. Out of everything else, religion too played a significant role in promoting eating with hands. The right hand holds a significant place in Indian cultural beliefs and practices, deeply intertwined with many religious rituals and traditions. It is customary for Indians to use their right hand not only for eating but also for a variety of auspicious activities (like sharing prasad or applying tilak or giving blessing). This stems from a shared belief system where the right hand is considered pure, representing good deeds and positive intentions. This tradition is rooted in several religions in India, including Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, and Jainism. The left hand, on the other hand, is traditionally viewed as impure, often reserved for tasks associated with personal hygiene. Let's Talk Dirty: The Matters Of Hygiene The only argument that the people who are calling eating with hands seem to be clinging to is hygiene. However, according to cultural anthropologist Dr Aditi Verma, "In Indian society, dining practices are not just about satisfying hunger; they are symbols of the society's broader perception of cleanliness and respect." Washing hands before and after the meals were also practiced as a tradition, which by the way, eliminates the question of hygiene. In every gesture made with the right hand, there lies a respect for the spiritual and physical purity that Indian culture holds dear. The influence of these beliefs extends beyond the dining table into daily life. For instance, when exchanging goods or money, or even shaking hands, many Indians still prefer using their right hand, as a gesture of goodwill. As urban lifestyles evolve, there has been a slight shift away from these customs, but they remain a vital element of cultural identity and heritage, especially in traditional communities. So, hand, knife, fork, spoon or chopsticks - whatever you want to use, the bottom line is this: people should be able to eat the way they want to without being subjected to racism, ridicule or mockery. Especially not for enjoying a plate of biryani the way it's meant to be eaten - by licking your fingers clean.
India Today
02-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Zohran Mamdani, cutlery shaming, and America's Finger-Lickin' hypocrisy
One of the most underrated, yet integral parts of our school life was the lunch box. Given we had to wear the same uniform, a lunch box was one of the few status signals a child could have. While there were many shapes and sizes, I was always envious of that child who had a built-in slot for a spoon in his tiffin box. A plastic spoon resting diagonally on top, waiting to be picked. But it never child would routinely bring various vegetables with parathas or pooris, which, after sticking together till the lunch break, had to be peeled off each other. If you excavated further, you would find a slice of mango pickle buried beneath, smearing the last poori with its own spoon was rarely used. It was ornamental. Like that crockery set, in a middle class household, exhibited in a glass cabinet in the drawing love to eat with their hands. The West can never digest this fact (and also our street food). The day they have an elaborate meal with their entire family on the same table with more than three items prepared, they celebrate it as Thanksgiving. For us, it's a usual Tuesday. The age-old debate gained currency when the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, armed with Bollywood songs and socialism, was found eating with his bare hands. And, was subsequently told to be civilised or go back to the 'Third World' by a says his worldview is inspired by the 3rd world while eating rice with his hands End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 29, 2025advertisementIt's slightly hypocritical for a country whose second-largest restaurant chain's slogan is 'Finger Lickin' Good'. Why aren't they licking their spoons? Tough Dr S Radhakrishnan, our former President, was having lunch with Winston Churchill. Just before lunch, our man excused himself to wash his hands, and came back to dig into his plate with his bare fingers. Churchill was not amused. He actually asked Dr Radhakrishnan to use cutlery as it was more man, whose birthday we celebrate as Teachers' Day, shot back: "Since nobody can use my hand to eat, my hand is more hygienic than any spoon or fork you use."ChatGPT would summarise the above reply in just two words - 'Fork you'. There is no scientific reasoning that validates one theory over the other. It's just convenient racism - an inability to accept people can be different, especially when they are taking your jobs. Moreover, Western diet has a lot of meat, often medium rare, which requires a knife to be cut into edible bits. The only reason you need a knife to have Indian food is when you are NOT planning to pay the restaurant speaking, a fact that various British governor generals didn't realise is that Indian food is not served like food. It's served like ingredients. The food is then mixed and prepared on your plate. Be it a Rajasthani thali or a South Indian meal, there are at least seven to eight items to mix the rice, dal or sambar, rasam, vegetables, appalam, pickle and many more. All of it is mixed together, with your fingers, like an expert chaatwala, using the various spices from different bowls in different proportions, to create that perfect morsel, which is then sent to your mouth for further flavour processing. Moreover, the curry or rasam sticks to your fingers due to forces of adhesion, thanks to class 10 science, and hence it's easier to transport the flavour to your is what an Indian thaali is. You can't do all that with a knife and a fork. My entire childhood was spent believing that the knife was only there to spread butter over my us Indians, taste buds are in our fingers. You will feel it the next time you are having a golgappa. 50% of the taste is the texture. When the hawker hands you the fragile, imli water-filled poori while you already have one in your mouth, the fingers send the sensory signal to the brain that the next one is coming, and it is even more spicy. It's 'Finger Lickin' Good', to use their own meanwhile, who wasn't finding many fans among the Indian diaspora in New York, suddenly is an eating-with-his-hands-racism martyr, and people like the author of this article, who aren't a big fan of his policies, are writing columns to defend him. The only hope is that his socialist ideas stay unused, like that spoon fitted on my friend's lunchbox. But who cares about the views of a Gurgaon resident, when the New Yorkers seem to be eating out of his hands.(Abhishek Asthana is the founder of a creative agency – GingerMonkey. He tweets as @GabbbarSingh)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
India Today
01-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Who the Fork Are You?
Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the American political wunderkind with a Gujarati Shia Muslim father from Uganda, a Hindu mother from Indian Punjab, and a middle name from Ghana, is deeply divisive, like politicians are. I have zero qualms about dragging him for eating with his hands during an interview. Savage. cardinal rule of civilised dining is simple: don't yammer while you're stuffing your face with biryani. Talking with a mouthful is a culinary crime, and I would curry ninda anyone committing it, be it in Mumbai or in Manhattan. But some Americans, particularly the MAGA brigade, aren't clutching pearls over his chatter. No, they're apoplectic about his hands. Eating with fingers? Heathen! To them, cutlery is the hallmark of sophistication, and bare hands are for isn't just fuel, it's a sensory orgy. Thank the lord for blessing us with the food on the table and our body with the five senses: sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing. Traditional eating was a five-star experience for all five senses. You gazed at the dish, caressed its texture with your fingers, inhaled its aroma, savoured its flavour, and relished the crunch or melt. Forks, knives, and spoons? Those were born in grim, water-scarce lands where icy streams and filthy paws made hand-eating a hygiene horror. But in cultures where hand-washing was a sacred prelude to anything worthwhile, fingers were the ultimate utensil. Enter colonialism: the fork-wielding masters branded their ways 'civilised' and the hand-eating colonised 'savage.' The cutlery supremacy was Mamdani was busy committing the sin of talking through his meal, he waxed poetic about his 'Third World sensibilities.' Oh, please. The Third World doesn't endorse mid-bite monologues. We offer our food to the cosmos, whisper a verse for universal nourishment, and then dig in with reverence. Chatting over dinner is a Western quirk, born of their obsession with 'table talk.' We didn't even have tables until the Brits showed up, and we only use cutlery for foods that demand them. Like a spoon for soup or forks for spaghetti. Never for says his worldview is inspired by the 3rd world while eating rice with his hands End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) June 29, 2025advertisementKnives, those primal tools of hunter-gatherers, were Europe's early claim to culinary fame. But while Asia was living its spice-infused golden age, Europe was slumming it with bread and stew. Spoons slurped the broth, knives hacked the loaf. Basic, boring, beige. Meanwhile, in lands of abundance, rice ruled. Spices danced, cuisines dazzled, and clean hands were all you needed. Why trust a fork that's been in who-knows-whose gob when your own washed hand is a known quantity? As the saying goes: you can't pick your fork's past, but you can scrub your medieval Europe was a hands-on affair. Knives sliced, fingers or bread scooped. Spoons were the soup sakhas, forks a later cameo. But as dining became a flex of class, forks crept in, promising cleaner, posher meals, untangled from the plebeian paw. By the 19th century, the four-tined fork and blunt table knife were Western dining's dynamic duo, with fish forks and butter knives arriving with a 'look at us, we're fancy!' Colonisation and trade spread this cutlery cult worldwide, but many cultures stuck to their guns, or rather, their hands. West of India, hands. East of India, chopsticks. India had the eating hand, thoroughly washed, before and India has an eating hand. Because, we have a washing hand, equally pristine. Thoroughly washed, before and after. Americans, still strangers to the bidet, might want to sit this hygiene lecture out. The nation that loves 'cutting red tape' still clings to paperwork to finish the job, calling desis unwashed while their own behinds stay, ahem, unfinished. I don't shake hands with suspected paper-users. hand-eating isn't just practical, it's a vibe. Touching food gauges its temperature, sparing you the 'ooh, aah, ouch' of a fork-shovelled scald. It's intimate, intentional, a middle finger to the fork fetishists. So, Zohran, keep eating with your hands. Just shut up while you're at it.(Kamlesh Singh, a columnist and satirist, is director of news with India Today Digital)- Ends(Views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author)Must Watch
