10
   

Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

 
 
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 08:23 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The Western Culture that you are a part of is responsible for colonizing America and Africa.

Again, I have no recollection of taking part in that. That's probably because I had no part in it. So the question remains: Which of my mental constructs involve the harming of another human being that is comparable to handing a girl over to an adult man, or mutilating the genitalia of a girl?
Quote:
You are arguing that Western cultural values should be imposed on indigenous cultures.

When did I say that? I am arguing that female genital mutilation is pointless and serves no purpose. I am also arguing that child marriage serves no purpose other than to fulfill tradition. I have told you several times already that my condemnation of child marriage and female genital mutilation is not a condemnation of an entire culture. But you are having trouble processing that information.

Whether or not you know it, you are defending the idea that humans are here to serve customs and traditions rather than customs and traditions serving humans. How reasonable is that?
Quote:
An indigenous woman could answer your question of how and why child marriages work.

It would be interesting to hear a woman who was a child bride explaining how she preferred to have nothing in common with her adult husband.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 08:31 pm
@Glennn,
We are going around in circles now.... I think I answered this.

Child marriage is a common part of pre-colonial African and American cultures. Western Culture came into to impose ideas of marriage to impose Western Cultural values. If it weren't for Western ideas about marriage, indigenous groups in Africa, America and Asia would be free to continue with their traditional understanding of marriage.

We are talking about Western Culture "saving" indigenous women from their own cultures. That is just an extension of colonialism. If White people never came to Africa or America, this would not an issue.

Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 08:34 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
We are going around in circles now . . .

Yes, we've both explained our points of view on the matter.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 08:35 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
It would be interesting to hear a woman who was a child bride explaining how she preferred to have nothing in common with her adult husband.


You can look it up yourself. Anthropologists specialize in studying other cultures in a respectful, non-judgmental way. You can read quite a few positive accounts of traditional child marriage as told directly by the women involved.

Indigenous voices can speak for themselves, if you are willing to listen to them and hear what they are saying. (Yes, there are examples of indigenous people fleeing their own cultures, but there are also examples of Americans fleeing modern culture... life is complicated.) Can you respect the indigenous women who support and defend their traditional ways of life including child marriage?

The more interesting case is India, a country that has been Westernized. People are still choosing to return to traditional marriage. You will have to listen to women and families who make this choice explain their reasoning. And there are Orthodox Jewish communities in New York who practice child marriage based on what they see as ancient traditions.

It was the accounts of the Yanomami tribe that most challenged Western Cultural views for me.



0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 08:48 pm
Child brides rarely have a say in whom, whether or when to marry. Melka, from Ethiopia, was 14 when she came home from school to discover she was to be married that day to an elderly man in her community. “After the wedding”, she recalls, “they took me to his house in the next village. He started pushing me towards the bedroom. I didn’t want to go inside, but no one would listen to me”.

Melka is not alone in her situation. A study in northern Ethiopia revealed that 81% of child brides interviewed described their sexual initiation as forced. In India, they were 3 times as likely to report being forced to have sex than girls who married later. Studies have also found that child brides typically continue to experience non-consensual sex throughout their marriage.

http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/why-is-child-marriage-a-form-of-violence-against-women-and-girls/
____________________________________________

So, no choice is a good choice . . .
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 09:52 pm
@Glennn,
You have stories of girls in countries that have been colonized. The traditional cultures have been mixed with modern institutions... the modern wins in sometimes very harmful ways.

But how do you account for the story of what happened pre-colonial cultures when the Colonial powers were just arriving? The indigenous cultures were functioning cultures that had every right to exist before the White people came. This is an account of Australian aboriginal culture.

Quote:
Traditionally, small bands of Aboriginal hunter-gatherers adhered to a strict kinship system that afforded protection, autonomy and respect to girls and women, says anthropologist Diane Bell, who has written several books on Aboriginal women. Young girls in arranged marriages to older men would be protected by overseeing co-wives and a semi-public life in open-air camps, which ensured that relatives would come running, spears in hand, should sounds of violence echo across the desert.

This traditional Aboriginal culture has been “bastardized and brutalized,” says Aboriginal professor Judy Atkinson, who has exposed the extent of violence against Aboriginal women in books and government reports. British colonizers arrived on the continent in 1788, unleashing disease, slaughter and merciless programs of forced assimilation. Aboriginals were dispossessed and herded onto densely packed government settlements and missions in a colonization that vanquished the 1 million-strong Aboriginal population to about 60,000 by the 1920s.

To “protect” Aboriginal children from “evil Aboriginal culture,” between 1910 and 1970, state authorities took as many as a third of all Aboriginal infants and children from their families, in what is now being referred to as a “stolen” generation. “Rabbit-Proof Fence,” a film that opens today in New York and Los Angeles, recounts this period in Australian history.



Here we had a functional aboriginal culture. People prospered with their own traditions, including child marriage, until White people came. I would argue that the cruelty was not caused by aboriginal traditional culture... but by the fact that that culture was dominated by a new culture.

I can not argue that in post-colonial societies, such as modern day Ethiopia or rural India, that child marriage makes sense. But this is because our world is now dominated by Western culture... Western culture permeates the modern world for better or for worse. I concede the argument for anyone living in the post-colonial world.

But look at the legacy of how we got here. Child marriages were ended by cultural subjugation, Christianization, forced schools. Indigenous children were literally kidnapped from their families by Australia, Canada and the United States to get them to give up their cultures. Is this kidnapping justified if that is what it takes to end the traditional practice of marriage?

I don't accept that the marriage practices of pre-colonial indigenous cultures... before the dominance of Western Culture and the reality that has created... were inferior to the Western Colonizers of whom you and I are direct cultural descendants.

These voices have been largely snuffed out. You can still find them in anthropology books.



maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:20 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn, I am going to bed now; a quick side comment.

This is a pretty difficult topic. It is emotional and challenging. You have argued passionately and intelligently. You have disagreed with me and pushed me to think without any personal attacks. I just want to say I appreciate that, and that I have enjoyed this discussion. Good night.

0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:24 pm
@maxdancona,
So, you're on board with elderly men marrying children, and the mutilation of female genitalia is not a big deal for you?
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:26 pm
@glitterbag,
Oh, he's just playing "devil's advocate" (wink, wink). Smile
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 06:38 am
@glitterbag,
He just happens to have arrived at a perfectly balanced relativist understanding of individual societies' mores and he's trying to educate us ignants at A2K so we can be as enlightened.

https://i.imgflip.com/82dbb.jpg
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 07:13 am
@TomTomBinks,
TomTomBinks wrote:

"Provincial" might be another term.

That, or "parochial".
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 07:23 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

TomTomBinks wrote:

"Provincial" might be another term.

That, or "parochial".

"Retrograde"?
0 Replies
 
perennialloner
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 07:59 am
How have you arrived at your denial of an objective moral truth? I think you may overestimate the degree to which cultures differ. i think most if not all societies in the world are bonded by common values. It's the way these values are expressed that differs. But even that aside, the presence of cultural diversity does not imply the absence of a superior moral system that all societies could adopt for their own benefit. The fact that cultures haven't totally converged and all people haven't espoused the same moral code does not preclude the existence of such universal morals.

If you believe that value judgments are entirely relative to one's experience, then what would you have to say about progress? Does it not exist? If there's no objective moral truth then how can we measure progress in society or in a society? Are we just changed and no more or less moral as time goes on? Was then just as moral and acceptable as now in an objective sense? I'm not sure that's a worthwhile conclusion.




snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 08:30 am
@perennialloner,
Quote:
How have you arrived at your denial of an objective moral truth?

I think he gleaned it from that most esteemed and respected bastion of knowledge - the Library of Out-of-His-Ass.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 08:43 am
@snood,
Geez Snood, you are really taking this personally.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 09:55 am
@perennialloner,
Over the past few pages, I think I have explained my point of view pretty thoroughly. You can go read it if you want, or you can choose not to. Either way is fine. We talked extensively of the problem of child marriage, which is certainly an example where cultures disagree passionately. I don't think there is much I can say on the topic that will convince anyone... unless you have read what I wrote and feel is something I need to explain better. It seems like this thread is down to sniping rather than any meaningful discussion.

I don't believe in absolute moral truth for the same reason I don't believe in God. People want to believe there is a God... but there is no real evidence that one exists. The gods of different cultures are so different that they haven't had shown any use in helping people get along. When two cultures meet, often the gods of the dominant culture replace the gods of the weaker culture. This doesn't prove anything about the true god.

It is pretty clear that morality is a human concept... morality doesn't apply anywhere else in nature. And it is clear that each culture has its own moral values. I don't see any reason, other than wishful thinking, to think there is anything absolute. The idea that the dominant culture (that got so through a period of colonialism, slavery and wiping out other cultures) happened to be the culture that "discovered" absolute moral truth seems incredible.
perennialloner
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 11:43 am
@maxdancona,
I believe I understand your position fine, and I am not claiming such a position is invalid. I am trying to point out, probably poorly, that dismissing the possibility of objective or absolute moral truth claims doesn't allow much discussion philosophically. What's the point of discussing child brides as a point of moral consideration if the only thing it can come to is: I believe prepubescent girls being pushed into marriage is wrong but others don't.

Must that really be all?
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 12:00 pm
@perennialloner,
I disagree. We all exist in Modern Western Culture. That is our reality. Given that fact there is no problem discussing these problems within the context of Modern Western Culture. Saying that it is wrong for prepubescent girls to be pushed into marriage isn't a problem. I believe that as strongly as anyone on this thread in the context of modern society. Whether or not we accept the Yamamoni tribes in Brazil to continue their own marriage traditions is a hypothetical to me. I have no say nor does their culture impact me.

Morality is much more than a belief. It is a social contract that we all must accept to live in our modern culture. These rules work as a social contract because the contract is backed with the indoctrination we all receive growing up in this culture. Many people apparently believe that these are "absolute truths"... but this belief isn't necessary. They are part of what it means to be part of Modern Western Culture and we all live by it.

We are social animals that have evolved to depend on societies. It is to our evolutionary advantage for members of a society to have the same values and core beliefs, even though the specific societies that have prospered through history have had very different core values. This is a primary reason for religion. The same goes for morality. Whether or not religion or morality is believed to be "absolute" or not doesn't take away its evolutionary utility.

Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 01:54 pm
When the question of whether something is right or wrong is answered by asking whether or not it is a cultural practice, it is a sure sign that someone is willing to allow culture to become the law . . . . regardless of who gets cut or who gets acted upon against their will. In the case of adult men marrying female children, one need only ask who is served and who is harmed by such a practice to understand the motivation behind the practice.

In the case of female genital mutilation, the same question can be asked. Who is being served, and who is being harmed? It is backwards thinking to judge a deed according to the culture rather than the culture according to the deed.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2017 02:34 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
You might begin to think that the enemy was right. Meaning, relativism makes for societal entropy/imploding.


Neither of these statements are true.



O.K., but what I cannot accept about relativism is that it negates any fervent beliefs, trivializing the import of context. And, since all beliefs have a context (i.e., western culture has judo-christian morality), being a relativist is just an academic exercise at best; at worst a fifth column philosophy for a culture, in my opinion.
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 02:58:31