India Is Not A First World Country

[BDawg]

India so wants to be a modern country. They really need to get rid of crap like this before they can be such. This type of behaviour is just disgusting.

CNN Link

VRINDAVAN, India (CNN) -- Ostracized by society, India's widows flock to the holy city of Vrindavan waiting to die. They are found on side streets, hunched over with walking canes, their heads shaved and their pain etched by hundreds of deep wrinkles in their faces.

These Hindu widows, the poorest of the poor, are shunned from society when their husbands die, not for religious reasons, but because of tradition -- and because they're seen as a financial drain on their families.

They cannot remarry. They must not wear jewelry. They are forced to shave their heads and typically wear white. Even their shadows are considered bad luck.

...

"Does it feel good?" says 70-year-old Rada Rani Biswas. "Now I have to loiter just for a bite to eat."

Biswas speaks with a strong voice, but her spirit is broken. When her husband of 50 years died, she was instantly ostracized by all those she thought loved her, including her son.

"My son tells me: 'You have grown old. Now who is going to feed you? Go away,' " she says, her eyes filling with tears. "What do I do? My pain had no limit."

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: BDawg
India so wants to be a modern country. They really need to get rid of crap like this before they can be such. This type of behaviour is just disgusting.

CNN Link

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>VRINDAVAN, India (CNN) -- Ostracized by society, India's widows flock to the holy city of Vrindavan waiting to die. They are found on side streets, hunched over with walking canes, their heads shaved and their pain etched by hundreds of deep wrinkles in their faces.

These Hindu widows, the poorest of the poor, are shunned from society when their husbands die, not for religious reasons, but because of tradition -- and because they're seen as a financial drain on their families.

They cannot remarry. They must not wear jewelry. They are forced to shave their heads and typically wear white. Even their shadows are considered bad luck.

...

"Does it feel good?" says 70-year-old Rada Rani Biswas. "Now I have to loiter just for a bite to eat."

Biswas speaks with a strong voice, but her spirit is broken. When her husband of 50 years died, she was instantly ostracized by all those she thought loved her, including her son.

"My son tells me: 'You have grown old. Now who is going to feed you? Go away,' " she says, her eyes filling with tears. "What do I do? My pain had no limit."
</end quote></div>

Every family member of these people could be hunted down and slaughtered for all I care. I dont buy into moral reletavistic crap when dealing with issues like this. Anybody that could do this is scum, and doesnt deserve to live. I dont care if they have been doing this for thousands of years.

 

[ayabe]

Well there's this and you know no putting dead bodies in the Ganges - where people bath, drink from, and do their laundry.

 

[StageLeft]

Psycho, but realize that India has a billion people and not all live like this. The place is so big and so diverse that there are plenty in India who'd be just as outraged by this as we are; I don't believe the place is nearly as culturally homogenous as the US.

 

[techs]

I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: BDawg
India so wants to be a modern country. They really need to get rid of crap like this before they can be such. This type of behaviour is just disgusting.

CNN Link

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>VRINDAVAN, India (CNN) -- Ostracized by society, India's widows flock to the holy city of Vrindavan waiting to die. They are found on side streets, hunched over with walking canes, their heads shaved and their pain etched by hundreds of deep wrinkles in their faces.

These Hindu widows, the poorest of the poor, are shunned from society when their husbands die, not for religious reasons, but because of tradition -- and because they're seen as a financial drain on their families.

They cannot remarry. They must not wear jewelry. They are forced to shave their heads and typically wear white. Even their shadows are considered bad luck.

...

"Does it feel good?" says 70-year-old Rada Rani Biswas. "Now I have to loiter just for a bite to eat."

Biswas speaks with a strong voice, but her spirit is broken. When her husband of 50 years died, she was instantly ostracized by all those she thought loved her, including her son.

"My son tells me: 'You have grown old. Now who is going to feed you? Go away,' " she says, her eyes filling with tears. "What do I do? My pain had no limit."
</end quote></div>

Rather broad brush, don't you think? The reporter has done a fine job of comparing this with the numerous widows that have remarried and the innumerable elderly and infirm that are taken care by their own kith and kin in their own house. Bravo! Such a balanced and comprehensive article! "India's widows", indeed.

India is not a developed nation for various reasons, but widows being ostracized is not one of them. A nation that takes cares of its widows does not automatically become a developed nation. You are confusing ailment and symptom. If the country were industrialized enough to provide viable sustenance to the old and infirm, either through socialistic programs or through capitalistic enablement, this symptom could be eradicated much easier than simply trying to impose one's theoretical moral superiority on Indians. So, your disgust has one and only one effect - it makes you feel morally superior. I am sure the "widows of India" thank you for your selfless contribution!

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

Maybe in your little world... the rest of us are doing just fine. :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

India has a socialist economy with strict government controls over private industry and a large social safety net.

Quit trolling.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

Do you consciously seek out topics you know absolutely nothing about?

If so, you're doing a fine job!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

Maybe in your little world... the rest of us are doing just fine. :laugh:

Heh. I just had to come back to this. Considering that India bills itself as "the world's largest democracy" and "the world's largest welfare state," tech's post here struck me as the most ignorant troll I've ever seen in P&N. Worse even than any ever trolled by McOwen.

I can see the two of them now...

techs: I've been waiting for you, Dave. We meet again, at last. The
circle is now complete. When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master.
dmcowen674: Only a master of evil, techs.

:laugh:

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi
You are confusing ailment and symptom.

No, I'm illustrating one example.

So, your disgust has one and only one effect - it makes you feel morally superior. I am sure the "widows of India" thank you for your selfless contribution!

No, it doesn't make me feel superior. It makes me feel disgusted that there are large groups of people who think like this.

If the country were industrialized enough to provide viable sustenance to the old and infirm, either through socialistic programs or through capitalistic enablement, this symptom could be eradicated much easier than simply trying to impose one's theoretical moral superiority on Indians.

Who says the government should be taking care of them? It doesn't require a rich and industrialized government for people not to throw their mothers out on the street.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.</end quote></div>

India has a socialist economy with strict government controls over private industry and a large social safety net.

Quit trolling.

I don't know what techs's intentions were in his post, but he is not far off the mark. What gave you the idea that India has a large social safety net? There is no reliable social program that helps the elderly care for themselves. Nor is the standard of living high enough that people can provide for disabled dependents with any reasonable amount of comfort. India's socialism is largely politically motivated and as such is very susceptible to abuse by those in power. I don't know enough about the social programs in the US, but from what I can tell the disadvantaged are definitely taken better care of in the US by government and NFP-instituted programs than in a country like India.

Of course, it is a stretch to believe that a social phenomenon such as preventing widow remarriage would take effect in the US at any time in the foreseeable future.

I don't believe that imposing more government-provided social support is the answer. But like I said in my earlier post, this support is a natural effect in a developed economy.

 

[athithi]

No, I'm illustrating one example.

I don't see how you were. At least techs was making inferences toward the ailment. You were merely bemoaning the symptom and alluding toward a cure for it.

No, it doesn't make me feel superior. It makes me feel disgusted that there are large groups of people who think like this.

That you should presume there exist large groups in India which simply throw out their mothers is what unmasks your feeling of superiority (that you live in a society which does not do this). The article is terribly one-sided and from start to finish is pushing an agenda. The reporter has not demonstrated any attempt to derive a conclusion. The entire article is a shallow opinion thinly veiled with selective statistics and your ready subscription to it is indicative of an instinctive (as opposed to studied) judgement of a foreign society.

Who says the government should be taking care of them? It doesn't require a rich and industrialized government for people not to throw their mothers out on the street.

You just did it again - expressing the predetermined notion that large groups of people in India are throwing their mothers out onto the street! Those that do so are doing it just as much out of financial compulsions as tradition. The article doesn't even dwell for a second on the the relevance of the traditional aspect (Vedic ashram system). IMO, regressive traditional practices endure in the absence of a more general social progress. Much as we may find it disagreeable, financial stability is often a very effective trigger for social progress as it allows individuals, groups and entire communities to be more objective and aware of the impact of traditional practices.

This does not directly translate into the government taking care of its people (what a shocking thought!), but if the government did what it was supposed to do in a fair and noble manner, strong social programs would eventually develop to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves or at the very least, enable communities to help themselves take care of their weak. Yeah, I know Ayn Rand said otherwise. She was wrong.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi
You just did it again - expressing the predetermined notion that large groups of people in India are throwing their mothers out onto the street! Those that do so are doing it just as much out of financial compulsions as tradition.

The article says 15,000. That seems like a large group of people to me.

If you feel that 15,000 people are worth throwing away when a country has 1 billion +, then that's on you.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I would hesitate to think that this problem is as widespread in a 1st world country.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: athithi
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.</end quote></div>

India has a socialist economy with strict government controls over private industry and a large social safety net.

Quit trolling.</end quote></div>

I don't know what techs's intentions were in his post, but he is not far off the mark. What gave you the idea that India has a large social safety net? There is no reliable social program that helps the elderly care for themselves. Nor is the standard of living high enough that people can provide for disabled dependents with any reasonable amount of comfort. India's socialism is largely politically motivated and as such is very susceptible to abuse by those in power. I don't know enough about the social programs in the US, but from what I can tell the disadvantaged are definitely taken better care of in the US by government and NFP-instituted programs than in a country like India.

Of course, it is a stretch to believe that a social phenomenon such as preventing widow remarriage would take effect in the US at any time in the foreseeable future.

I don't believe that imposing more government-provided social support is the answer. But like I said in my earlier post, this support is a natural effect in a developed economy.

I've talked with several Indians I've worked with in the past about how you deal with the government services in India. Bribing officials is pretty much routine, especially in healthcare.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: BDawg
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: athithi
You just did it again - expressing the predetermined notion that large groups of people in India are throwing their mothers out onto the street! Those that do so are doing it just as much out of financial compulsions as tradition. </end quote></div>

The article says 15,000. That seems like a large group of people to me.

If you feel that 15,000 people are worth throwing away when a country has 1 billion +, then that's on you.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I would hesitate to think that this problem is as widespread in a 1st world country.

Where did I say that 15,000 people were worth throwing away? My grouse is with the fact that you are attacking the effect (or the lack thereof) rather than the cause and are suggesting that fixing the effect would fix the cause. In the course of this quixotic charge, you are also adopting an unsubstantiated claim that this effect is endemic while in reality it is very specific and tightly coupled to economic factors. I also took the trouble to point out the tradition factor that is being used to prop up this effect and counter-claimed that fixing the main cause (financial insecurity) would mitigate the subsidiary cause (traditional practice) and diminish the net effect (widow ostracization).

Instead of looking at the bare numbers, provided so selectively in the article, you should look at the percentage of people living in poverty in India and the rate at which they have been coming out of poverty in the last decade and a half and cross-reference that with the changes observed in traditional practices and their beneficial (or other) results and then determine the magnitude of this effect and whether or not the current rate and type of change will in fact diminish this effect eventually. But you took 2 numbers (15,000 and 1.1 billion), one effect (widow ostracization), one cultural phenomenon (ashrama system) and concluded that India will not become a developed country unless the effect is fixed and you expressed this sentiment with your disgust, parlaying the ratio of 15k : 1.1B as being of a different import than it really is. Would you blame me for not being too impressed?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.</end quote></div>

India has a socialist economy with strict government controls over private industry and a large social safety net.

Quit trolling.

Once again you just MAKE STUFF UP. I GUESS YOU JUST ASS-UMED INDIA HAD A SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. GUESS WHAT? WRONG AGAIN.
YOU ARE JUST CALLING ME A TROLL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BOTHER TO DO A SIMPLE SEARCH ON THE WEB.

Here's a link to India's Social Security system. OOPS. THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.

http://desicritics.org/2007/03/05/000454.php

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

No, this is what happens when you have religious custom and tradition dominate over common sense.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BDawg
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: athithi
You just did it again - expressing the predetermined notion that large groups of people in India are throwing their mothers out onto the street! Those that do so are doing it just as much out of financial compulsions as tradition. </end quote></div>

The article says 15,000. That seems like a large group of people to me.

If you feel that 15,000 people are worth throwing away when a country has 1 billion +, then that's on you.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I would hesitate to think that this problem is as widespread in a 1st world country.</end quote></div>

Where did I say that 15,000 people were worth throwing away? My grouse is with the fact that you are attacking the effect (or the lack thereof) rather than the cause and are suggesting that fixing the effect would fix the cause. In the course of this quixotic charge, you are also adopting an unsubstantiated claim that this effect is endemic while in reality it is very specific and tightly coupled to economic factors. I also took the trouble to point out the tradition factor that is being used to prop up this effect and counter-claimed that fixing the main cause (financial insecurity) would mitigate the subsidiary cause (traditional practice) and diminish the net effect (widow ostracization).

Instead of looking at the bare numbers, provided so selectively in the article, you should look at the percentage of people living in poverty in India and the rate at which they have been coming out of poverty in the last decade and a half and cross-reference that with the changes observed in traditional practices and their beneficial (or other) results and then determine the magnitude of this effect and whether or not the current rate and type of change will in fact diminish this effect eventually. But you took 2 numbers (15,000 and 1.1 billion), one effect (widow ostracization), one cultural phenomenon (ashrama system) and concluded that India will not become a developed country unless the effect is fixed and you expressed this sentiment with your disgust, parlaying the ratio of 15k : 1.1B as being of a different import than it really is. Would you blame me for not being too impressed?

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think. You're spending a lot of time trying to explain and minimize a barbaric practice. Try writing an editorial back to CNN explaining why this isn't a big deal and way to one sided.

I don't care what the underlying cause is. My only point is that India wants very badly to be a first world major country. Unless they get crap like this reigned it (which may come from culture, poverty, or tradition) they don't deserve to.

I don't care to be the one who fixes this. It's India's problem and they should be wanting to fix problems like this. Maybe fixing poverty will fix this problem, but I don't remember hearing Steinbeck stories about kicking grandma off the truck.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: techs
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.</end quote></div>

India has a socialist economy with strict government controls over private industry and a large social safety net.

Quit trolling.</end quote></div>
Once again you just MAKE STUFF UP. I GUESS YOU JUST ASS-UMED INDIA HAD A SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. GUESS WHAT? WRONG AGAIN.
YOU ARE JUST CALLING ME A TROLL BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BOTHER TO DO A SIMPLE SEARCH ON THE WEB.

Here's a link to India's Social Security system. OOPS. THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.

http://desicritics.org/2007/03/05/000454.php

You are a troll. This has been proven over and over again. The troll part of your post was when you said, "Welcome to the U.S. future." I didn't make that up.

India does have a socialist economy and a welfare state. I didn't make that up either. The reason they don't have a US-type social security system is the result of that. Does not compute, you say? Then ask yourself: what need does a socialist state have for its elderly who can't work anymore? Then maybe (albeit unlikely) you'll understand how the social security system developed inside a capitalist economy.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: BDawg
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: athithi
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: BDawg
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: athithi
You just did it again - expressing the predetermined notion that large groups of people in India are throwing their mothers out onto the street! Those that do so are doing it just as much out of financial compulsions as tradition. </end quote></div>

The article says 15,000. That seems like a large group of people to me.

If you feel that 15,000 people are worth throwing away when a country has 1 billion +, then that's on you.

I don't have stats in front of me, but I would hesitate to think that this problem is as widespread in a 1st world country.</end quote></div>

Where did I say that 15,000 people were worth throwing away? My grouse is with the fact that you are attacking the effect (or the lack thereof) rather than the cause and are suggesting that fixing the effect would fix the cause. In the course of this quixotic charge, you are also adopting an unsubstantiated claim that this effect is endemic while in reality it is very specific and tightly coupled to economic factors. I also took the trouble to point out the tradition factor that is being used to prop up this effect and counter-claimed that fixing the main cause (financial insecurity) would mitigate the subsidiary cause (traditional practice) and diminish the net effect (widow ostracization).

Instead of looking at the bare numbers, provided so selectively in the article, you should look at the percentage of people living in poverty in India and the rate at which they have been coming out of poverty in the last decade and a half and cross-reference that with the changes observed in traditional practices and their beneficial (or other) results and then determine the magnitude of this effect and whether or not the current rate and type of change will in fact diminish this effect eventually. But you took 2 numbers (15,000 and 1.1 billion), one effect (widow ostracization), one cultural phenomenon (ashrama system) and concluded that India will not become a developed country unless the effect is fixed and you expressed this sentiment with your disgust, parlaying the ratio of 15k : 1.1B as being of a different import than it really is. Would you blame me for not being too impressed?</end quote></div>

Honestly, I couldn't care less what you think. You're spending a lot of time trying to explain and minimize a barbaric practice. Try writing an editorial back to CNN explaining why this isn't a big deal and way to one sided.

I don't care what the underlying cause is. My only point is that India wants very badly to be a first world major country. Unless they get crap like this reigned it (which may come from culture, poverty, or tradition) they don't deserve to.

I don't care to be the one who fixes this. It's India's problem and they should be wanting to fix problems like this. Maybe fixing poverty will fix this problem, but I don't remember hearing Steinbeck stories about kicking grandma off the truck.

You want to keep reiterating your point that this is a widespread practice in India but it is an insult to the millions of Indians who would rather starve than turn out a family member. You come about and parade your ignorance like it were some badge of honor. You don't care about what I think because your mind cannot process the breadth and scope of what I am talking about and you prefer to operate in your narrow world doling out labels to all and sundry to make you sound like a morally superior person. And to boot, you make an utterly irrelevant, insipid and inverted reference to Steinbeck's scathing commentary about your country and your government and your people that sure might not have thrown a dying grandmother out the truck but bulldozed entire families out of their lands. The grandma got on the truck and eventually died as a direct result of abject poverty. Next time, try to read the novel before referring to it. Better yet, try to read it twice - like I did.

You don't care to inspect your motives. You don't care to analyze a biased report. You don't care to participate in the solution. You don't care to understand a conflicting point of view. But you care enough about creating a thread in ATPN. I suggest the next time you start a thread like this, you just ask the moderators to lock it right away. That way you can meet your objective of displaying your ignorance without being challenged for it.

 

[Oceandevi]

I see a large labor pool just waiting to be exploited! A widow-fueled industrial revolution!

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: CPA
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.</end quote></div>

No, this is what happens when you have religious custom and tradition dominate over common sense.

OK, so you are mired in poverty and you now have a choice between feeding your infant or feeding your ailing mom. What would common sense dictate now?

Even the article does not blame religious custom and only hints at tradition - neither of which dominates this decision. The only thing that dominates is the absence of money. Tradition and custom are supporting actors in this tale. Blaming another's customs and religions is just an easy way of making one's own customs and religions seem superior in comparision. Abandoning religion and tradition without addressing the real cause is pointless - sure religion and tradition play their role in making a society regressive, but money is the root cause.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: techs
I guess thats what happens when you have no Social Security.
Not to mention a standard of living that prevents family from supporting non-working members.
Welcome to the U.S. future.

I'm not going to comment on whether or not India has a social welfare system since I know little about India.

However, I want to add that India has the world's 2nd largest population at about 1.15 billion (with China being in first place at about 1.32 billion). (Source--Wikipedia--take it for what it's worth.)

Could India's runaway population explosion problems have something to do with its poverty and also with the devaluation of human life demonstrated in that news report? Might that have some sort of an effect on how people are valued? Perhaps the thinking goes something like this, though perhaps subconsciously:

When your society already has too many people, what's a single human life? So an old woman is starving to death. Big deal. Good riddance. Go ahead and die already, old hag.

Is it possible that when a nation has fewer natural resources per capita and less arable and useful land per capita that the likelihood of poverty is increased?

Is that the future of the United States, as Techs suggested?

Could something like that ever happen here in the United States, which is the world's third most populous country (by a huge margin) at about 302 million people? Note that the United States also suffers from population explosion with the population having increased by a record 32.7 million people in the decade from 1990 to 2000, according to Census Bureau data (and that doesn't count illegal aliens). Also, some have projected that the U.S. population will explode to about 450-500 million by 2050.

I think it could happen, but the primary engine driving America's transformation into a third world country would be economic policy and not population explosion, though population explosion is certainly a factor. As cities increase in size, the price of real estate also increases, decreasing people's quality of lives. That force combined with global labor arbitrage and rising prices for food could significantly increase the size of the already sizable American underclass.

(According to a news report in my local paper, the increased cost of gasoline and corn (animal feed) has increased the costs of milk and meat and it's only going to continue to increase as more land is used for ethanol production. Throw an increased demand for food and land into the mix--a higher population--and you can perform simple economic calculus to infer that the price of food would only increase.)

However, rather than let the elderly, the homeless, and the poor starve to death, we could just open up suicide centers to assist anyone who wants to die in attaining a dignified and peaceful death. Suicidatoriums is what I'd call them. Oh, that's right, the Christians who force their religion on everyone else think that suicide should be illegal. Oh well, guess poor Americans will just have to slowly starve to death.

So, yes, it is conceivable and perhaps even predictable that what happened in India could happen in the U.S. someday. Also, if the Peak Oil theorists are proven even partially correct, it could be far, far worse than what was described in India. (On the Peak Oil discussion forums people contemplate massive die-offs, where to relocate, and how to become self-sufficient, subsistence farmers in addition to ways of defending against bandits.)

 

[athithi]

When your society already has too many people, what's a single human life? So an old woman is starving to death. Big deal. Good riddance. Go ahead and die already, old hag

Could it be remotely possible that this happens on very rare occasions and that even amongst the elderly that were thrown out of the house, in a lot of cases desperation and not moral turpitude was at play?