I was enjoying this article because it all rang true to the man. Until this:
"On another trip to Chennai, when Erdős heard of mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan’s destitute widow, he wrote her a cheque. This quirky genius gave away most of his earnings."
I find this to be a bit more disturbing (in the first wiki article)
> On 14 July 1909, Ramanujan married Janaki (Janakiammal; 21 March 1899 – 13 April 1994),[25] a girl his mother had selected for him a year earlier and who was ten years old when they married.
Child marriages were very common in India till about 50 years ago. My grandma was married when she was 15, my wife’s grandma when she was 13. My parent’s generation pushed back the age of marriage to 16 - 22. My generation moved it to 21 - 28 and now it is even later. Socio economic status plays a large role in the age women get married with poorer people getting married early.
This was unfortunately the norm in his community at the turn of the century. A rather detailed study about the historical context of marriage among women in Ramanujam's community (Tamil Brahmins) is here: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46203/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY...
From what I understand, it was common across many communities throughout India (though in Tamil Nadu, primarily among the Brahmins) for girls to be married before the onset of puberty (with consummation of the marriage only permitted post-menarche.. at least in theory). I do recall seeing a paper once that argued that the age of marriage actually became younger for some complicated reasons under British rule in the early 19th century.. not sure if that's believable.
As you might guess, I'm from the same community, and my great-grandmother was married at the age of 9 or 10. While one could attempt to rationalize and contextualize it, I think that's pointless: it was wrong then, as it is now.
Not analogous. Sons are practically obligated by family (and indirectly by the immediate society) to marry even against their will for keeping the tradition. Also females were considered unfit to get married after a certain (very young) age creating a pressure on girl's family to find a groom as early as possible. People created pseudo scientific and religious basis for enforcing these.
It was a social evil has rightly been banned but slavery was both a social evil and individual maliciousness on part of people who partook in it - and there were a few black folk too in that group who were selling their own people. No society 'mandated' slaverer to sell people as a way of life. There were always other professions if it didn't fit well with their conscience. No one would make your life hell for not actively selling slaves by making you into a social outcast.
13 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 45.5 ms ] thread"On another trip to Chennai, when Erdős heard of mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan’s destitute widow, he wrote her a cheque. This quirky genius gave away most of his earnings."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan - died in 1920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s - born in 1913
> On 14 July 1909, Ramanujan married Janaki (Janakiammal; 21 March 1899 – 13 April 1994),[25] a girl his mother had selected for him a year earlier and who was ten years old when they married.
From what I understand, it was common across many communities throughout India (though in Tamil Nadu, primarily among the Brahmins) for girls to be married before the onset of puberty (with consummation of the marriage only permitted post-menarche.. at least in theory). I do recall seeing a paper once that argued that the age of marriage actually became younger for some complicated reasons under British rule in the early 19th century.. not sure if that's believable.
As you might guess, I'm from the same community, and my great-grandmother was married at the age of 9 or 10. While one could attempt to rationalize and contextualize it, I think that's pointless: it was wrong then, as it is now.
It was a social evil has rightly been banned but slavery was both a social evil and individual maliciousness on part of people who partook in it - and there were a few black folk too in that group who were selling their own people. No society 'mandated' slaverer to sell people as a way of life. There were always other professions if it didn't fit well with their conscience. No one would make your life hell for not actively selling slaves by making you into a social outcast.
This is the city of Madras / The home of the curry and the dal Where Iyers speak only to Iyengars/ And Iyengars speak only to God.
Was that last line a reference to Ramanujan?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin