Kiwi Farms user breaks down 'Izzat', the Indian subcontinent's cultural honor system. It effectively explains every single trope about Indian behavior: they all participate in an invisible clout-chasi

GluttonousManSlob
kiwifarms.net
Yesterday at 7:43
#25,061
I didn't see this term mentioned in the thread, so I wanted to share this all with you. It's about
Izzat. Some posts have mentioned ‘saving face’, which is Izzat, but I wanted to elaborate on it.
Izzat has no direct translation into English. We only have terms that can broach the same concept
such as or ‘reputation’ or ‘face’. Izzat is so much more than that. It's a zero-sum game of
collective honour shared whole groups of people, all of whom take it very, very seriously. A
system like this isn't just foreign to Enlightenment values, but argue it's antithetical to every
sensible form of governance on the planet. It will destroy any system that assumes good faith.
Izzat conflicts are not about who is right and who is wrong. It's about who wins and who loses.
This means it's a zero-sum game where just about any action is justified (including murder) to
restore the lost Izzat. Izzat is a limited social currency and the easiest way to get it is to take it from
someone else. Winning is righteous in Izzat. Losing is unrighteous. This means that if someone
plays the game of izzat well enough, they can get away with just about anything (murder, rape,
scamming, cheating, stealing). The only morality in Izzat is the protection of your group's
collective ego. The only appropriate response when your Izzat is attacked is the complete
destruction of whoever insulted it.
Two people get into an argument. They might escalate, but chances are it won't be that bad.
‘Sorry I broke your garden With two Indians in an argument, the stakes are always deadly
thanks to Izzat. Neither of them can back down, nor can they admit fault. Admitting fault is seen as
deliberately humiliating yourself. Not only that, but because Izzat is shared, you are shaming
everyone who shares your Izzat. So, admitting fault or taking responsibility for a problem is a form
of social suicide. This means even if the dispute was over something completely fucking stupid or
trivial (like a broken garden gnome), it could spiral into a decades long honour feud.
Izzat is also the reason why police are reluctant to get involved in disputes. Because Izzat is a
zero-sum game, all participants are involved in the game. If a policeman sides with one family
over another in an Izzat dispute, this means that he's deliberately taking the side of that family and
dishonouring the other. This marks him for retribution the offending party. Without parties
being able to be impartial, then centralized authority cannot effectively function.