Re: Cultural Issue with the Foot Logo

["Theppitak Karoonboonyanan" <thep linux thai net>]

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Sergey Panov <sipan sipan org> wrote:

> I've mentioned those two examples in the wain attempt to prove that some
> (many/most) of the "cultural" sensitivities are ridiculous to the point
> of being foony.
>
> When I saw "foot"(long, long time ago) as a "Gnome Desktop" emblem I was
> not happy. I thought that the stinkiest part of the human body did not
> deserve to be an emblem of the one of the most important GNU projects.
> It had nothing to do with the cultural(Russian) background, it was my
> personal reaction. I am  still a Gnome "bigot" and that "Foot" does not
> bother me much anymore (all emblems are stupid). I even find it kinda
> cool now - rebellious, in-your-face sort of thing.
>
> Please, please think twice, trice, ... before claiming cultural
> differences/problems. Please check if it is just you.

As said somewhere else in these two threads, it's not me either.
And I believe most GNOME fans here like it.

The question is not for you, it's about your culture in general.

The problem I've met is a kind of barrier for new comers, as foot is
considered the least respected part of the body in my culture.
It's not that kind of disgust you explained. But it's a sign of strong
disrespect. You should not point with your foot. You should not
expose your foot toward others, bare or with shoe on. Raising foot
over one's head, the most respected part of the body, by any means
is a most obvious sign of disrespect. When sleeping, you should never
point your foot to Buddha's image.

On the other hand, allowing other's feet to be put over one's head
is the highest degree of paying respect, which is reserved for one's
beloved masters. And paying respect at other's feet is also the highest
degree of respect, which is reserved for one's parents or higher
people. These are traditions in societies where seniority plays an
important role like mine.

So, you can imagine how people think when someone showing foot
to them. It's like claiming of higher status and treating the target person
as a lower class or alike.

A Wikipedia page [1] describes this as a taboo in countries strongly
influenced by Buddhism. But I doubt this claim, as I find little relation
to Buddha's teaching. Rather, I think it might come with religions from
India in the past. The traditional Indian culture, obviously influenced by
Hinduism, might come along with the priests and monks from India and
Sri Langka. However, that's just my hypothesis about history. But the
fact is that this convention has indirect relation to some relegious
values.

  [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot#In_culture

Wow, a long description, isn't it? Just to clarify that it's not the same
kind as what you talked about.

> PS. To me, the good example of culturally insensitive emblem would be
> the old indo-europen symbol for the raising sun ("kolovrat" in Slavic).

Ah, you mean Swastika, right? Yes, it seems to be acceptable
everywhere. I agree.

Some academy, however, may distinguish between the right-facing
and the left-facing forms. The right-facing form means clockwise
turning, which is a sign of paying respect to some holy body for
auspiciousness, while the left-facing form, counter-clockwise, is
for misfortunes and is used in funerals. But this is just minor detail.

> The next in line is the sickle-and-hammer variant.

Are Americans OK?

Regards,
-- 
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/