YOURSAY | Words matter - the debate over ‘keling’
What does next of kin mean? The term “next of kin” has traditionally been used to refer to a person’s closest living relative. But – despite the fact that people use it a lot – there’s no official definition for next of kin in UK law. As such, the rules on who can be your next of kin . Jul 14, · The Act defines ‘senior next of kin’ in a similar vein to the Coroners Act, prioritising spouses, then parents and lastly siblings. If There is No Next of Kin. When a person dies in a hospital without any next of kin or friends, and no assets, then the hospital takes responsibility for arranging the funeral through a government agency.
Activist decries derogatory definition how to make gravy chicken 'Tambi' in online dictionary. Ultimately, the speaker of the word decides its intention, not the listener. The intention of the word is more important rather than its usage. He said, in Sarawak, the Chinese called the Ibans "la khia", translated as "son of the savage". The Malays called them Dayaks, translated as "foolish native or country bumpkin".
On the other hand, the Ibans called the Chinese "Cina tucang" roughly meaning "pigtail Chinese", and they call the Malays "laut", meaning "sea". He was tickled when he said that the Malays would refer to themselves as "laut" when they talked to the Ibans. The word they used got stuck which started as a lazy, perhaps degrading term but nevertheless descriptive.
Keling people originally meant people from the Kalinga kingdom. I guess over time, for some how to download songs to my ipod nano or another, Indians felt it was a bad word and decided it was an insult.
I suppose times change, but the older generation is still accustomed to speaking a certain way, largely due to the non-derogatory history of this word. They were amongst the most racist generation of our time. Free download whatsapp for nokia e5 mobile9 like this should not occur anymore, and people must stop defending institutions like them, especially when it comes to clear-cut racist practices such as this.
For those of you who are still confused, this is exactly why the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Icerd will never see the light of day in Malaysia and also why we will never become a developed nation in the next few decades. We will continue to have people who are still living in the past, people with third world mentality, running things. We are the ones who continue to elect these types of half-baked leaders over and over again. We truly deserve this government.
Serves us right. Its origin is probably from the Kalinga kingdom in history. I may be wrong here. VP Biden: A lot of words worldwide started off as normal descriptive ethnic-based words.
The words were then used to malign, insult, create animosity, etc, within the wider community. When this happened, the word that was once acceptable became derogatory. In Malaysia, derogatory terms against all ethnicities are widely used by both the oppressor and oppressed.
This explains our present predicament, which will impoverish all Malaysian regardless of race. If race in the country was never made an issue by the politicians, then perhaps such words would not have been viewed as derogatory.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. In the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted overcomments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the what does next in kin mean agenda. Subscribe now. These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest.
Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact. Yoursay Published 23 Marpm. Regarding terms for different races in different languages, a Sarawakian once narrated this: He said, in Sarawak, the Chinese called the Ibans "la khia", translated as "son of the savage". Sign up for Kini Morning Brief. Related Reports 4. Ramasamy insists DBP apologises over 'keling' debacle. DBP promises to replace 'Keling' with 'India' in word definition.
The City of Muscle Shoals
May 22, · So, to my mind, there is little doubt that the next century is going to be a time of great uncertainty and upheaval as resources, money and space become ever more scarce. It . More About the Lyrics of Sweet Home Alabama “I hope Neil Young will remember, a Southern man don’t need him around, anyhow.” This is in response to Neil Young’s song, “Southern Man,” which bashes the South as being racist. If you listen closely, immediately after this line you can hear Lynyrd Skynyrd producer, Al Kooper, faintly singing the song, “Southern Man.”. Mar 30, · WFH rule dropped From tomorrow, civil servants and personnel for businesses under the International Trade and Industry Ministry are no longer required to .
Stroll into your local Starbucks and you will find yourself part of a cultural experiment on a scale never seen before on this planet. In less than half a century, the coffee chain has grown from a single outlet in Seattle to nearly 20, shops in around 60 countries.
Each year, its near identical stores serve cups of near identical coffee in near identical cups to hundreds of thousands of people. For the first time in history, your morning cappuccino is the same no matter whether you are sipping it in Tokyo, New York, Bangkok or Buenos Aires. Of course, it is not just Starbucks. Select any global brand from Coca Cola to Facebook and the chances are you will see or feel their presence in most countries around the world.
It is easy to see this homogenization in terms of loss of diversity, identity or the westernization of society. But, the rapid pace of change also raises the more interesting question of why — over our relatively short history - humans have had so many distinct cultures in the first place. And, if diversity is a part of our psychological make-up, how we will fare in a world that is increasingly bringing together people from different cultural backgrounds and traditions?
This trait, which I outline in my book Wired for Culture, makes us stand alone amongst all other animals. Put simply, we can pick up where others have left off, not having to re-learn our cultural knowledge each generation, as good ideas build successively upon others that came before them, or are combined with other ideas giving rise to new inventions.
Take the axe as an example. Similarly when someone had the idea to stretch a vine between the ends of a bent stick the first bow was born and you can be sure the first arrow soon followed. Papyrus scrolls, books and the internet allow us to even more effectively share knowledge with successive generations, opening up an unbridgeable gap in the evolutionary potential between humans and all other animals. Rather than picking up where others have left off, they start over every generation.
Just think if you had to re-discover how to make fire, tan leather, extract bronze or iron from earth, or build a smartphone from scratch. That is what it is like to be the other animals.
Not so for humans. Around 60, years ago, cumulative cultural adaptation was what propelled modern humans out of Africa in small tribal groups, by enabling us to acquire knowledge and produce technologies suitable to different environments.
Eventually these tribes would occupy nearly every environment on Earth — from living on ice to surviving in deserts or steaming jungles, even becoming sea-going mariners as the Polynesians did.
And amongst each one we see distinct sets of beliefs, customs, language and religion. The importance of the tribe in our evolutionary history has meant that natural selection has favoured in us a suite of psychological dispositions for making our cultures work and for defending them against competitors.
These traits include cooperation, seeking affiliations, a predilection to coordinating our activities, and tendencies to trade and exchange goods and services. Thus, we have taken cooperation and sociality beyond the good relations among family members that dominate the rest of the animal kingdom, to making cooperation work among wider groups of people.
We also see our cultural nepotism in the dispositions we have to hold doors for people, give up our seats on trains, or contribute to charities, and we might even risk our lives jumping into a river to save someone from drowning, or when we fight for our countries in a war. Of course, this nepotism is not just a positive force.
It is also a trait that can be exploited by propagandists and to produce Kamikaze-like or other suicidal behaviors. But the success of cooperation as a strategy has seen our species for at least the last 10, years on a long evolutionary trajectory towards living in larger and larger social groupings that bring together people from different tribal origins.
Large groups also benefit from the efficiencies that flow from a division of labour, and from access to a vast shared store of information, skills, technology and good luck. And so in a surprising turn, the very psychology that allows us to form and cooperate in small tribal groups, makes it possible for us to form into the larger social groupings of the modern world.
Thus, early in our history most of us lived in small bands of maybe 50 to people. At some point tribes formed that were essentially coalitions or bands of bands. Collections of tribes later formed into chiefdoms in which for the first time in our history a single ruler emerged. Eventually several chiefdoms would come together in nascent city-states such as Catal-Huyuk in present day Turkey or Jericho in the Palestinian West-Bank, both around 10, years old.
City-states gave way to nations states, and eventually to collections of states such as the United Kingdom or the United States, and even in our modern world to collections of nations such as seen in the European Union. At each step formerly competing entities discovered that cooperation could return better outcomes than endless cycles of betrayal and revenge.
This is not to say that cooperation is easy, or that it is never subject to reversals. Just look at the outpouring of cultural diversity that sprang up with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite being suppressed for decades, almost overnight Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, and Dagestan reappeared, all differentiated by culture, ethnicity, and language.
So how will these two competing tendencies that comprise our evolved tribal psychology — one an ancient disposition to produce lots of different cultures, the other an ability to extend honorary relative status to others even in large groupings — play out in our modern, interconnected and globalised world? Thus, it seems our tribal psychology can extend to groups of seemingly nearly any size. In large countries such as the United Kingdom, Japan, the United States, Brazil, India and China hundreds of millions and even over a billion people can all be united around a single tribal identity as British or Japanese, American, Indian or Chinese and they will have a tendency to direct their cultural nepotism towards these other members of their now highly extended tribe.
If you take this behaviour for granted, just imagine , dogs or hyenas packed into a sporting arena — not a pretty sight. But two factors looming on the horizon are likely to slow the rate at which cultural unification will happen. One is resources, the other is demography. Cooperation has worked throughout history because large collections of people have been able to use resources more effectively and provide greater prosperity and protection than smaller groups.
But that could change as resources become scarce. After all, why cooperate when there are no spoils to divide? Related to this, the dominant demographic trend of the next century will be the movement of people from poorer to richer regions of the world.
Diverse people will be brought together who have little common cultural identity of the sort that historically has prompted our cultural nepotism, and this will happen at rates that exceed those at which they can be culturally integrated. An example is the nations of the European Union squabbling over national versus EU rights and privileges.
Then, if the success of modern societies up to this point is anything to go by, new and ever more heterogeneous and resource-scarce societies will increasingly depend upon clear enforcement of cultural or democratically derived rules to maintain stability, and will creak under the strain of smaller social groupings seeking to disengage further from the whole.
When this happens, we naturally turn inwards, effectively reverting to our earlier evolutionary instincts, to a time when we relied on kin selection or cooperation among families for our needs to be met. Against this backdrop the seemingly unstoppable and ever accelerating cultural homogenization around the world brought about by travel, the internet and social networking, although often decried, is probably a good thing even if it means the loss of cultural diversity: it increases our sense of togetherness via the sense of a shared culture.
In fact, breaking down of cultural barriers — unfashionable as this can sound — is probably one of the few things that societies can do to increase harmony among ever more heterogeneous peoples. So, to my mind, there is little doubt that the next century is going to be a time of great uncertainty and upheaval as resources, money and space become ever more scarce. It is going to be a bumpy road with many setbacks and conflicts. But if there was ever a species that could tackle these challenges it is our own.
It might be surprising, but our genes, in the form of our capacity for culture, have created in us a machine capable of greater cooperation, inventiveness and common good than any other on Earth.
And of course it means you can always find a cappuccino just the way you like it no matter where we wake up. If you would like to comment on this video or anything else you have seen on Future, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter. Does globalization mean we will become one culture? Share using Email. By Mark Pagel 18th November Modern humans have created many thousands of distinct cultures.
So what will it mean if globalization turns us into one giant, homogenous world culture? Around the BBC.