Eric pinto writes: Here is an interesting stat for Santosh, Thelma and Charu: the stream of young and not so young catholic Goans who were employed by my mother to perform domestic chores fifty years ago were never literate. Their public display of "christianity" was limited to forty minutes of worship in a language none of understood - Latin. I believe the precepts of that religion did not influence their conduct or ethics. Like the good folk in our Rolly's favourite - 'Annie Get Your Gun,' they simply did 'what comes naturally.'
The implication of the existence of a 'Portuguese' lifestyle and ethos, as applied to common village existence is a misleading canard. ------------------------ Response: Eric, Incase you missed it in the past 5 years, my name is Selma. I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of Goans were not your mother's domestics. The vast majority of Goans were poders, rendeiros, tarvottis, clerks in some measure, kharvis (fisherfolk) and agricultural labour. And they did not lead destitute lives. Most of them were mundkars, so they lived in their own houses. Many of them sent their children to at least one to two years of schooling. Many read Konkani in Romni-script. So they were quite capable of imbibing through the printed word. Secondly, even if they didn't understand the mass they attended, they had thoughts and discussions about this God they worshiped. They didn't worship in a theological and ideological vacuum. People are not so intellectually bankrupt at the village level, that they go about their existence without thinking about it or being conscious of it. So what were they thinking about when they sat on the floors of those baroque churches, listening to choirs and looking at portraits of Caucasian saints? Presumably there were thoughts entering their minds. Not just the buzz of static or how to stuff vinegary choritzo sausages. So it is possible, that culture was imbibed through discussion and exposure. How patronising it is to assume that culturization is a result of mere economics. So if we extrapolate that to all societies, we would have two distinct cultures existing in every given society. Two fundamentally differing ethoi in existence at every given point of time, in every known human society based on disparity of economics. But we know that is not an accurate representation of how societies form and function. And by the way, canard is a big word. Best, Selma