Tradition and enforced ritual

[MooseIBe]

I posted this on my forum in response to a discussion which evolved about the long-necked women of some parts of Burma, but thought I'd post it here too to see if anyone had any comments.

Looking at those pictures of the Burmese 'long-neck' women prompted me to do a google on them to find out a bit more about the practice and what it's meant to denote. As I could have guessed, the idea is to adorn and distinguish the women (although a cpl websites pointed out that these days it's a big tourist draw). Other Karen women practice elongating the earlobes with pieces of elephant tusk when they marry (unmarried women don't do this).

So .. .fair enough, I suppose. I can't imagine it's all that pleasant to wear rings round your neck for life but it's not life-threatening and if it's voluntary (which in fact it maybe isn't entirely as it starts in childhood) then that's their preogative. But it made me think of all the other things out there that are done or have been done in the name of 'tradition' that really shouldn't be permitted to continue.

The worst of these is female circumcision, practiced in many parts of Asia and Africa. I think that male circumcision without anaesthetic, as practiced in some African tribes as a right of passage, is cruel and unnecessary also .. although not as scarifying as that done to females. Other tribes mark the faces or foreheads of young children with identifying marks that they will carry for life.

In China, the traditions (fortunately now obsolete) were foot-binding and the involuntary castration of young boys to become royal eunuchs (we went in for this one ourselves a bit in the middle ages as castratum apparently have good singing voices). Foot binding, which left women partially crippled (you'll notice that it's disproportionately women who are affected by these 'traditions') strikes me as having been especially cruel.

Another obsolete tradition, thankfully, is suttee or widow burning which was practiced throughout India until the 19th century. Like all unpleasant 'traditions' I gather that the victim was schooled to consider it something that she HAD to do to avoid dishonouring herself.

That's the crux of it, I think. The traditions that still survive do so partly because they are perpetuated by the victims themselves. And we set too much store by 'tradition' as in 'this is part of that group's culture; they've been doing it for thousands of years, we have no right to interfere.' That's bullshit if you ask me... just because something has a long established history doesn't mean that it is above question. And 'traditions' that involve the mutilation of young girls and boys should especially be questioned, I think, not just by outsiders but by those inside the tribe or group who are advocating such things.
__________

[Adora]

Here, have a nice big slice of WORDpie. :D

[MooseIBe]

I beg your pardon?

[xyza]

As to the elongation of necks and other body parts there is a little more to it than you have read.

It is said that it began during the slave trade, the women began doing these "mutilations" to their faces to save themselves.
http://www.africanconservancy.org/images/BodyArt/surmadisk.gif
I mean what white family would want to have to look at a woman with a plate sticking out of her mouth, and when she removes it her upper lip hanging down on her chin?
Basically as you can imagine it made them far less profitable to the traders.
It became a tradition and continues today, often the larger the greater the dowry is for her and the more appealing she is, they now see it as decoration, just like jewellery.

Female circumcision is indeed nasty, I have seen a pregnant woman in maternity who couldn't even have an internal to check dilation, due to the scare tissue that was all that remained of her genitailia.
She had to have a c-section in the end and we were all left motified at the thought of the pain she must have had to suffer just to concive the child.

[MooseIBe]

Xyza,

I was just thinking of lip plates after I made the post but I've never seen one that size.

I had never heard the theory you mention.. do you have a source for it? (I am not doubting it, would just be interested to read more).

Are you a midwife? I can imagine that conception and childbirth for a woman who has been fully circumcised must be intensely unpleasant :(. And yet women in this country will have their daughters circumcised (either illegally here or sent to Africa to have it done) when there is no need at all for it.

[xyza]

The need is in their culture, while I don't agree with it is it right to inforce our beliefs on other cultures, yeah I know we've been doing it for years.

On the theory and sorce, I looked and could only find mention on a site (http://www.lars.dj/ethiopia/06.html) that shows pictures of some tour. I heard it from the village elder of the tribe on a BBC4 documentary where some guy was touring the area.

[MooseIBe]

Thanks I will go look at the linky :)

Re imposing our cultures.. it's a tricky line. I don't agree with imposing our values or religions or whatever on other people and find it patronising and indeed rather cringey when we do so. However, I don't like the idea of not speaking out against children being mutilated because we are afraid of offending someone or interfering with their culture either :)

[xyza]

I think it's fine speaking out, and I know to us there's a hell of a lot of things that we would consider mutilation, I used the word talking about the lip plates.
Thing is, it is considered mutilation to us but not always to those who do it.

Again I in no way agree with female circumcision.

[MooseIBe]

I suppose it would help to define mutilation because otherwise, a case could be made that piercings and tattoos, both widely used in the US, constitute mutilation.

I would say that it is mutilation when it is done without the consent of the 'victim.' Hence, if a woman wants a lip-plate and is old enough to make that decision for herself, fine .. she is as entitled to a lip-plate as she is to a tattoo. I do not think it is acceptable to do such a thing to a child though.

(And before anyone asks, no, I don't agree with piercing the ears of young babies either).

[MooseIBe]

Just wanted to add also .. I think it is wrong to encourage the idea that in order to be fully accepted as a member of that society, one must have these adornments (or in order to be marriageable, a woman must be circumcised). A decision to have a lip plate or similar really ought to be a decision based entirely on the wishes of the person and not on a desire for acceptance.

[xyza]

Agreed on the age/decision part, not on the desire for exceptance part though.

Most things including ear piercings are done for acceptance to some degree, even if you all argue the point with me.

Children use the argument "all the other girls have their ears pierced"
Parents reply "just because everyone else has doesn't mean you have to as well"

In reality even when the child reaches an age when she can legally decide for herself she'll still want her ears pierced in most cases, because everyone else has and no one likes being the odd one out. It's even done on a subconcious level most of the time.

[MooseIBe]

Yes fair point.

[Adora]

I beg your pardon?
It's like the STFU pie except it's filled with delicious whipped cream, fluffy puff pastry, chocolate and sweet sweet berries, instead of llama poo.

(Read: "Word!" or "I agree with what you said".)

while I don't agree with it is it right to inforce our beliefs on other cultures
If the practices in those cultures cause pain and suffering, yes. Like similar practices in the South American areas, I can't begin to imagine the pain those things cause, or the dental/jaw problems. Not even starting to begin on the social ostracism of the women who choose not to mutilate themselves and submit to social pressures, or who don't have the biggest one :rolleyes:. Most practices of extreme female bodily mutilation throughout the world have some connection with objectification and marriageability of the female as a piece of property.

FGM? Neckrings? Jaw plates? Practices started to avoid enslavement of another kind by a foreign force? The underlying prejudices behind them are what should be combatted in all forms, explicit and symptomatic. The Surma lip-plates are a perfect example of this, since the size of them dictates, supposedly, the number of bartered cattle required for the bride. It's like a woman having a sign hung around her neck by her family that says "5 dollars".

[MooseIBe]

It's like the STFU pie except it's filled with delicious whipped cream, fluffy puff pastry, chocolate and sweet sweet berries, instead of llama poo.

(Read: "Word!" or "I agree with what you said".)

Ooooh, can I have two??

[MooseIBe]

BTW I was thinking about this subject in the supermarket - and came out to find I'd inadvertantly purchased two dozen quails eggs, some rattlesnake sausages and a large male overcoat; that's what happens when I don't concentrate - and it occured to me that not only are the victims of most of these things female but that in most of the cases where the victim is male the ritual is a test of courage or 'manhood.' Hence in Uganda they rip a boy's foreskin off without anaesthetic not to make him more marriageble but so that he can prove publicly that he is brave enough to undergo such a thing without flinching.

With the women, I suppose, it doesn't matter if they flinch or not.

I was pleased to see people like Alice Walker - who wrote an excellent novel on the subject - weighing in against female circumcision because it rather forestalls the inevitable cries of 'white imperialist!' that critics are exposed to.

[BDS]

Actually, men undergo scarifications and other mutilating rituals, too. The Sun Dance, as practiced in many Plains Indian cultures was one such (although the mutilation was not permanent). If you've seen "A man Called Horse", you've seen how men were hung for hours at a time from a tripod by thongs through their pectoral muscles.

This is not to say, of course, that sexism is not a factor in many rituals of female mutilation.

[The Lone Ranger]

In the case of female circumcision, I think it's fairly clear that the practice originated as a means of controlling female sexuality. I'm sure the rationale was that if you make it so that women derive no pleasure from sexual intercourse -- or if it's downright painful, in fact -- that they're less-likely to engage in "illicit" sex. If I'm not mistaken, in some cultures men will often refuse to accept brides who have not been circumcised.

Actually, I think that "female circumcision" is a very poor euphemism. It would be comparable to male circumcision only if male circumcision involved the partial or complete removal of the penis and scrotum. It's genital mutilation, pure and simple.


In any event, that it's done as a means of controlling women's sexuality and of denying them the ability to experience sexual pleasure even within marriage is more than adequate reason to condemn the practice as barbaric, in my opinion. Besides that, it's my understanding that it's not all that uncommon for young women to bleed to death during these "operations."


The truly sad thing is that a lot of the people pressing for the continuation of this tradition are women. I remember hearing a report on NPR not long ago about it, and they featured a recording of a young girl screaming as her mother and aunt held her down while the "surgeon" did his work. Afterward, they interviewed the mother, who spoke of how important it was to keep alive their traditions, and that the pain caused by the operation was therefore justified -- and that if her daughter should die as a result, then she would get to be with Allah.


As I recall, Margaret Atwood pointed out in The Handmaid's Tail that it's often the victims of a practice who most fervently argue that it should be continued. Very sad.

-- Michael

[MooseIBe]

Actually, men undergo scarifications and other mutilating rituals, too. The Sun Dance, as practiced in many Plains Indian cultures was one such (although the mutilation was not permanent). If you've seen "A man Called Horse", you've seen how men were hung for hours at a time from a tripod by thongs through their pectoral muscles.

This is not to say, of course, that sexism is not a factor in many rituals of female mutilation.

Was that the one where they then had to cut off their little fingers with an axe?

My point is, though, that these things, nasty as they are, are supposed to be tests of manhood and bravery.

[Adora]

The truly sad thing is that a lot of the people pressing for the continuation of this tradition are women. I remember hearing a report on NPR not long ago about it, and they featured a recording of a young girl screaming as her mother and aunt held her down while the "surgeon" did his work. Afterward, they interviewed the mother, who spoke of how important it was to keep alive their traditions, and that the pain caused by the operation was therefore justified -- and that if her daughter should die as a result, then she would get to be with Allah.
Right, and what's wrong with this statement? Who's the "surgeon"? A man. Who controls Islam? Men. Who is benefitting the most from this act? Men.

Yes, it's nice to use this excuse all the time, but it ignores the basic fact that if suddenly all the women did take a stance en-masse and said "No", you know exactly who would come down on them like, ah ha, a gender scorned.

But yes, any group who is victimised eventually comes to define their identity in the discourses and terms outlayed by the victimiser. Whether we're talking slaves, gender violence, religious persecution, etc etc. It's the same psychological programing cults and religion use to induct their members and groom their to define their identity entirely by the standards set by the controllers of the cult/religion. The people being groomed might make choices whether or not to conform, and as they are more and more inducted and outside voices of reason are silenced, not conforming becomes harder. That doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the ones benefitting most from the violence/persecution, and the ones with the most power to change things, are the ones controlling these societies.

Edited to add: And if someone needs to mutilate themselves excessively in any way to conform to a gender ideal, there's something wrong with the gender ideal that needs fixing, fast.

[xyza]

The Surma lip-plates are a perfect example of this, since the size of them dictates, supposedly, the number of bartered cattle required for the bride. It's like a woman having a sign hung around her neck by her family that says "5 dollars".Yet it is her choice to have the lip plate, if you watch Dangerous Game: The Suri (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/goingtribal/episodes/episodes.html) on Discovery, you will see that the girls have the plates of their own free will and like them, just as we have our belly buttons or ears pierced. One girl on the programme had even refused tohave a plate, that was fine as far as the rest of her village was concerned.

While I agree about many things you are saying here, I still believe it wrong for others to enforce their beliefs and culture on those who do have free will.
What I see from your arguments on the subjects excluding circumcision and the such is that you know very little about these people.

If you watch that documentary you will see what western civilisation is in fact doing to these tribes with the introduction of guns as one example.

As far as the lip plates and neck stretching goes what you are saying is that these cultural riturals need to be abonished, because as far as our culture is concerned it is out-moded.

Culture is a unique human survival mechanism, created by early man to compensate for his physical inability to survive in the environment. Culture takes two forms, non-material -knowledge, beliefs, values and rules or customs; and material -architecture, visual, literary, musical and performing arts, inventions or artifacts, clothing, and foods. And those two forms, material and non-material, interact over and over,with the non-material (ideas) giving rise to the material (objects) and the utilization (usage) of the material, over time and subtly, changing human ideas.

Cultures change constantly, at varying rates, with its non-material (knowledge, beliefs, values and rules or customs) and material (architecture, visual, literary, musical and performing arts, inventions or artifacts, clothing, and foods) components equally subject to external and internal pressures to change. Beyond the naturally occurring change cycles in which the relationships between material and non-material cultural elements remain in balance, there exist various forms of "unnatural cultural changes", in which such relationships are not preserved. These unnatural cultural changes occur when cultural elements from a powerful society are incorporated into another weaker society under extreme external pressure.

In extreme cases, even if some cultural elements of the weaker society survive, the result is invariably a more or less dysfunctional society in which the members adopt beliefs and values that they either cannot instantiate materially or that conflict with other pre-existing beliefs and values; or in which the indiscriminant adoption and usage of artifacts is inconsistent with the existing beliefs and value systems. Historically, this process of "acculturation" was caused by conquest or colonization and through the use of force. Today in Africa, various humanitarian programs, although well-intended and using persuasion instead of force, still represent forms of extreme external pressure, and can create conditions under which acculturation is accelerated to the weaker societys detriment.

Well these are traditional cultures you are wanting to change and they should be allowed to grow and change at their own speed, there is nothing so far to say that our culture has it right, we are after all under attack from yet another culture that we have decreed to have it all wrong and look where that is getting everyone.

[MooseIBe]

As far as the lip plates and neck stretching goes what you are saying is that these cultural riturals need to be abonished, because as far as our culture is concerned it is out-moded.

I don't think it's really a case of being outmoded though but of being cruel. I mean where would you draw the line .. would you say it was okay for foot binding to still happen if women consented to it?

[MooseIBe]

http://www.remibenali.com/culture_and_tribes_surma/photos_surma/surma_1_l.jpg

Dear God. How does she eat?

[xyza]

The plates are not fixed, they are removable and they manage very well with them in.

Look at Africa now, areas in civil war etc. In Zim they finally took their land back from the white man. Yet at the same time people now live under dictatorship rather than the leadership that their cultures had before we interfered.
What right do we have to destroy and hurry progression along?

[xyza]

Look how long it took for woman to become empowered enough to win the right for us to vote, if we didn't have to fight for things like that they would mean nothing to us.

It is not something that we should rush for others or the learning that is gained from natural progression is lost.

[MooseIBe]

But in the meantime, millions of little girls are mutilated every year in the name of 'tradition.' You say you don't approve of female circumcision but are you also saying that you would not approve of steps being taken to end it? There seems to be this idea in some places that it's always wrong to force through progress .. I just don't think that's the case. What would have happened in the US if the abolitionist movement had had that attitude? People might still be enslaved today. If something is obviously wrong and obviously oppressive to one particular group then I see nothing wrong in campaigning to have it ended. It's too easy to hide oppression behind a cloak of 'tradition.'

[Adora]

Yet it is her choice to have the lip plate, if you watch Dangerous Game: The Suri (http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/goingtribal/episodes/episodes.html) on Discovery, you will see that the girls have the plates of their own free will and like them, just as we have our belly buttons or ears pierced. One girl on the programme had even refused tohave a plate, that was fine as far as the rest of her village was concerned.
Okay, I'm not getting into another argument about shit like the Discovery Channel but read on...

While I agree about many things you are saying here, I still believe it wrong for others to enforce their beliefs and culture on those who do have free will.
Then why is it right for the culture to perpetrate their own culture in the first place? No, they might not force it on the girls, but what's the difference between someone coming in from outside and saying, "That's really ugly, bad for your health, and just another form of sexist bartering for dowries in marriage" and someone inside saying, "It would be better, darling, if you choose to have a lip plate so that your dowry can be higher. It's your choice, of course, but it would be better for us, your family"? Just because they're in the culture, they can get away with enforcing their culture on others? WE're not allowed to say, "Hey, maybe there's a better way" just because we're on the outside?

You're right, I know very little about these people. But, sadly, the only things that tend to change from these kinds of cultures to culture are what foreign objects that are used as the designators of worth. Not the reasons for them being used themselves. The same reasons occur over and over again: People reduce others to controllable objects for their own benefit. They ingrain it so well that the majority of victims conform "of their own free will", because, as I said, the lack of diversity means the victims come to conform their identity to the way the powerful says so. Maybe you need to go back and read what I said before.

If you watch that documentary you will see what western civilisation is in fact doing to these tribes with the introduction of guns as one example.
Right right. Of course. Western civilisation is horrible and evil. We should just leave these people alone, and not allow them to use the good things Western civilisation has come up with, like medical advancements, human rights, advancements in racial, gender, and other equalities, democracy, education, science, technology, etc etc. Sure, focus on the bad in "The West", and exoticise everything else just because it's "cultural", without analysing the realities of those cultures. It keeps you safe, like those that indulged (and still do) in Orientalism all those years ago.

As far as the lip plates and neck stretching goes what you are saying is that these cultural riturals need to be abonished, because as far as our culture is concerned it is out-moded.
No, as far as our culture is concerned, we have a moral obligation to wipe out slavery in all its forms, which is all that dowries are, "freely" chosen in a homogenous society or otherwise.

Cultures change constantly, at varying rates, with its non-material (knowledge, beliefs, values and rules or customs) and material (architecture, visual, literary, musical and performing arts, inventions or artifacts, clothing, and foods) components equally subject to external and internal pressures to change. Beyond the naturally occurring change cycles in which the relationships between material and non-material cultural elements remain in balance, there exist various forms of "unnatural cultural changes", in which such relationships are not preserved. These unnatural cultural changes occur when cultural elements from a powerful society are incorporated into another weaker society under extreme external pressure. In extreme cases, even if some cultural elements of the weaker society survive, the result is invariably a more or less dysfunctional society
And I ask you, what's the difference between the "weaker" society incorporating culture (and, BTW, it's never one-way, ever) and the "weaker" members of a culture incorporating, freely, those practices "under extreme pressure"? Why is the physical mutilation of a certain gender's bodies not dysfunctional, but the introduction of proper health care (often required because of the physical impairment these cultural artifacts cause) classified as "dysfunctional"?

or that conflict with other pre-existing beliefs and values
Not a good argument, in any case. Culture & society only changes, even when excessively isolated, when there are conflicts internally and externally. Lack of conflicts causes stagnation and, through loss of adaptability, death.

Well these are traditional cultures you are wanting to change and they should be allowed to grow and change at their own speed, there is nothing so far to say that our culture has it right, we are after all under attack from yet another culture that we have decreed to have it all wrong and look where that is getting everyone.
No, we don't have it right, but we have it better. We also have a duty of care to make it better for others. No, we have no right to enforce, but we have every duty to encourage, educate and provide choice previously unavailable, because of the same dominating, conflicting and prejudiced practices perpetrated in the cultures that don't have it as good.

In Zim they finally took their land back from the white man.
Oh bullshit. For someone who craps on about "Not knowing what you're talking about", you obviously know shit about Zimbabwe. The "They" who "took back" the land from the "white man" were not the ones who owned it in the first place, and thus, there have been disastarous results. 20 year olds claiming they're "war veterans" have taken farms that were the lifeblood of the Zimbabwean economy and the only things employing a good deal of the population, thus destroying the economic power & quality of life many of the people "they" supposedly represent had. They are not the same tribes who dominated the region in the first place, either. Appeal to nostalgia fails, once again.

Yet at the same time people now live under dictatorship rather than the leadership that their cultures had before we interfered.
Could you possibly exoticise and pathetically patronise these people any bloody more? There was not some idyllic utopian time when everybody in Zimbabwe lived in pre-colonial harmony and got along. They fought each other. They were violent and prejudiced. They discriminated. They had leaders who were as corrupt and awful as Mugabe currently is. Colonisation didn't improve it for many, but before Mugabe's rise to power the positive remnants of those colonial times were at least getting the basics down in the country to build it up to equals of its Minority World counterparts. Healthcare. Technology. Infrastructure. An Economy. Those fighting in the name of "cultural purity" are destroying that, and becoming the same sort of fascist dictator scum the original colonisers were.

The fact is, however, they have a choice for otherwise, because of the improvements the West has brought. The have a choice to speak out, that previously they didn't have, because of cultural mixing in the last 50 years. And we know we have a duty to help them because of these same mixes of culture and globalisation. We have a duty (not a right) to hurry progress along if it improves the lives of the people in these countries, and if they make those choices offered to them by us. We have a duty to help those fighting for modern, Western, concepts of freedom of expression, freedom of political representation, the right to eat, the right to have a home and not have it destroyed by the dictatorial government, we have a duty to provide health care, medical treatment and, if necessary, refuge & safety (all those wonderful modern Western concepts), if their home culture is flawed, dysfunctional, and does not provide them with these.

Crimes of the past do not mean we must not interfere now. More than anything, they mean we have a greater duty of care to improve the now of those who are suffering because of past crimes.

[BDS]

Was that the one where they then had to cut off their little fingers with an axe?

My point is, though, that these things, nasty as they are, are supposed to be tests of manhood and bravery.


No doubt they ARE tests of manhood and bravery, although they are "supposed to be" methods of inducing supernatural visions, as a part of intitiation into manhood (at least the Sun Dance was). You are correct, though, that it was quite different from some female mutilations in that regard.

[The Lone Ranger]

Right, and what's wrong with this statement? Who's the "surgeon"? A man. Who controls Islam? Men. Who is benefitting the most from this act? Men.

Yes, it's nice to use this excuse all the time, but it ignores the basic fact that if suddenly all the women did take a stance en-masse and said "No", you know exactly who would come down on them like, ah ha, a gender scorned.
I don't disagree at all, and I sincerely hope that I didn't create the impression that I in any way agree with or excuse the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation.

And if someone needs to mutilate themselves excessively in any way to conform to a gender ideal, there's something wrong with the gender ideal that needs fixing, fast.
Indeed!

Cheers,

Michael

[Adora]

I don't disagree at all, and I sincerely hope that I didn't create the impression that I in any way agree with or excuse the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation.
No, not at all. I just get sick of people using that argument to somehow ignoring the basic underlying misogynistic fact of such acts. It's like saying just because certain African tribes sold other certain African tribes to slave traders, slavery wasn't another form of racism. I realise now you weren't doing such a thing, but, y'know. Cookie?

[Trojan]

Treatment of females of all ages in traditional Tibetan culture is just as abhorrent as the mutilators in African and Pakistani cultures. Binding, sleep deprivation, starvation, rape and genital mutilation are common. Banishment of non-child producing women is common as well. Of course the DA-LIE Llama is glorified here and in other western countries because of the naive romantic ideal of life in the Himalayas, and his opposition to the Chinese. Without the Chinese, Tibet would have no medical care for women, no schools and life would be like it was 1000 years ago. Not as cool as it sounds. The glamorized vision of Tibetan life and "Free Tibeters" is equivalent to glorifying the Taliban.

[Adora]

Once again, previous crimes of a country doesn't mean interference now is negated. Crimes of traditional Tibetan life does not mean the crimes being perpetrated now by occupying Chinese forces should be allowed to continue, in any form. "Free Tibet" does not mean "Return to the primitive way of life from before Chinese occupation".

[MooseIBe]

Quite.

[ManM]

This thread almost seems to be begging for missionaries to go out and convert the primitive people to the ways of civilization. Maybe now you understand what was going through the heads of the Christians when they actually did interfere with local customs and such.

[Trojan]

The "FREE TIBET" movement is a well funded religious seperatist endevour that seeks to again seperate the people of Tibet from the modern world. All we need to do is look at a map of Europe and SW Asia to see that breaking nations into ethnic and religious enclaves is a recipe for racially and religious based wars and strife. The WW1 map of Europe, particularly SE Europe, looks much like it does today; Each nationality/religion has it's own small fiefdom. All competing for the same resources, most forcing entire ethnic groups out to keep ethnic/religious purity. The Indian based, US financed "Free Tibet" movement falls into that category in my view. Certainly the people of the region would prefer health clinics, education and infrastructure over a return to ancient religious servitude. The Han have committed acts of violence against some elements of the Tibetan population, but to assume a man who hasn't lived in Tibet for decades can lead the province to it's former theocratic state is hoping for a return of ignorance and poverty to the people of that region.

[Adora]

Certainly the people of the region would prefer health clinics, education and infrastructure over a return to ancient religious servitude.
Yes, because the sterilisation of their women, resource abuse and communist servitude is so much better. :rolleyes:

I'll repeat: one doesn't have to support the return to primitive states to believe a nation and its people should be recognised as such. Just because someone says, "I believe Tibet should be allowed its own sovereignty and be free from communist China's occupation" doesn't mean they support the Dalai Llama's theocracy.

[Trojan]

Certainly the people of the region would prefer health clinics, education and infrastructure over a return to ancient religious servitude.
Yes, because the sterilisation of their women, resource abuse and communist servitude is so much better. :rolleyes:

I'll repeat: one doesn't have to support the return to primitive states to believe a nation and its people should be recognised as such. Just because someone says, "I believe Tibet should be allowed its own sovereignty and be free from communist China's occupation" doesn't mean they support the Dalai Llama's theocracy.
I haven't heard of any Tibetan group inside or outside the province declaring any other future for Tibet other than that pre-ordained by the CIA's favorite religious leader hiding in India. As an opponent of seperatism I support the status quo.

[Adora]

As an opponent of seperatism I support the status quo.
Then you're no better than the Tibetan culture you decry.

[Trojan]

As an opponent of seperatism I support the status quo.
Then you're no better than the Tibetan culture you decry.
That's pretentious wankery. Comparing ancient Buddhist life to the 2nd most powerful nation on Earth just won't swim. Though you are entitled to your opinion. :rolleye2:

[Adora]

Why? What's the difference between the misogyny of old Tibetan culture and the misogyny of modern Chinese culture? Improvements in technology don't make one better than the other. It's still misogyny. It's still deprivation of basic rights of women. It's still upholding of a twisted status quo at the expense of a large percentage of the population.

But, y'know, as a supporter of said twisted status quo, I don't expect you to understand such a concept.

[Trojan]

Why? What's the difference between the misogyny of old Tibetan culture and the misogyny of modern Chinese culture? Improvements in technology don't make one better than the other. It's still misogyny. It's still deprivation of basic rights of women. It's still upholding of a twisted status quo at the expense of a large percentage of the population.

But, y'know, as a supporter of said twisted status quo, I don't expect you to understand such a concept.
I don't understand your belief that modern Chinese women are no better off than the women of pre-Communist Tibet. Like I said, the idea of a mystical religious Shangri-la guarded by spirits and CIA operatives is popular with the Western Left. I'm pleased my side won.

[Adora]

Probably because I don't hold that belief. Nor do I hold one of a mystical Shangri-La as per the supernaturalists who want their theocracy. You get a star for trying to read the thread though. I'm sure one day you'll be able to follow a conversation.

[MooseIBe]

This thread almost seems to be begging for missionaries to go out and convert the primitive people to the ways of civilization. Maybe now you understand what was going through the heads of the Christians when they actually did interfere with local customs and such.

No I don't. The missionaries went specifically to try and impose their own RELIGION onto other peoples. That is not the same as trying to stop people maiming small children.

[ManM]

This thread almost seems to be begging for missionaries to go out and convert the primitive people to the ways of civilization. Maybe now you understand what was going through the heads of the Christians when they actually did interfere with local customs and such.

No I don't. The missionaries went specifically to try and impose their own RELIGION onto other peoples. That is not the same as trying to stop people maiming small children.
Unless, of course, the religion imposed on them opposes the maiming of small children. ;)

[Trojan]

Probably because I don't hold that belief. Nor do I hold one of a mystical Shangri-La as per the supernaturalists who want their theocracy. You get a star for trying to read the thread though. I'm sure one day you'll be able to follow a conversation.
Thank You for the star! Perhaps our political differences clash on this topic so much that a conversation isn't viable. There are a myriad of other subjects we can hopefully come closer to agreement on. :P

[Adora]

Perhaps our political differences clash on this topic so much that a conversation isn't viable.
Conversation is always viable. Just because you don't get an agreement out of it, doesn't mean it can't be entertaining. Grow some balls and take a leap.

[Carlos]

If you watch that documentary you will see what western civilisation is in fact doing to these tribes with the introduction of guns as one example.
Right right. Of course. Western civilisation is horrible and evil. We should just leave these people alone, and not allow them to use the good things Western civilisation has come up with, like medical advancements, human rights, advancements in racial, gender, and other equalities, democracy, education, science, technology, etc etc. Sure, focus on the bad in "The West", and exoticise everything else just because it's "cultural", without analysing the realities of those cultures. It keeps you safe, like those that indulged (and still do) in Orientalism all those years ago. .

And the self proclaimed leader of Western civilization is ............?
It is just about that they have a moral mission , it is simple.
Invent that they all have weapons of massive destruction ( first check if they have rich natural resources) , invade them and transform them in whatever you want
Besides , you are fighting for democracy.




Why? What's the difference between the misogyny of old Tibetan culture and the misogyny of modern Chinese culture? Improvements in technology don't make one better than the other. It's still misogyny. It's still deprivation of basic rights of women. .

I don't see any difference with this kind of USA misogyny:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3325
Did you get your camera?

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

I don't see any difference with this kind of USA misogyny:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3325
No, I don't either, Carlos. But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, if you had bothered to read, generalising "the West" on the negatives of one country (the US) is as racist, arrogant and patronising as the old practice that occured in the West of Orientalism. So once again, just because of the crimes of the West, doesn't mean we should deny them the benefits. Who do you think runs Medicine Sans Frontiers, the Red Cross, and other charitable organisations working in those areas, afterall?

[Carlos]

I don't see any difference with this kind of USA misogyny:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3325
No, I don't either, Carlos. But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, if you had bothered to read, generalising "the West" on the negatives of one country (the US) is as racist, arrogant and patronising as the old practice that occured in the West of Orientalism. So once again, just because of the crimes of the West, doesn't mean we should deny them the benefits. Who do you think runs Medicine Sans Frontiers, the Red Cross, and other charitable organisations working in those areas, afterall?

So? What are those organizations doing to stop those rituals as you want?

Psst.( did you get your camera?)
Thanks,
carlos

[Trojan]

Perhaps our political differences clash on this topic so much that a conversation isn't viable.
Conversation is always viable. Just because you don't get an agreement out of it, doesn't mean it can't be entertaining. Grow some balls and take a leap.
I'm used to swaying opinion. And I was doing my very best to be cordial. I should have believed the other posters that insist you a bitch. Bitches are fun only if they're hot. Sorry princess! Pale, homely Brits with bad teeth don't make the cut. :cool:

[Adora]

So? What are those organizations doing to stop those rituals as you want?
MSF has sex-ed classes and provides medical care for women who have been affected by the mutilation. The Red Cross does the same. The Red Cross provides refuge for women escaping such practices, as well as safe houses where they educate the girls in places like India & Pakistan for women who are escaping dangerous domestic violence situations. With the education comes the knowledge that these women do have a choice, as do other women in their community.

Like I have been saying over and over again in this thread: education and offering choices, not forcing.

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm used to swaying opinion.

Please pardon my intrusion, but it's not just about convincing others your views are right, is it? Suppose you're having a conversation with someone and they provide you with evidence that your views on a given matter are incorrect -- what then? Isn't that an opportunity to learn something new? (Which is always a good thing, in my opinion.)

Cheers,

Michael

[Adora]

I'm used to swaying opinion.
Er, yeah, so? Welcome to the internet: nobody cares what you're "used to".

I should have believed the other posters that insist you a bitch.
Well duh, genius. But that's neither here nor there regarding my political views, enjoyment of discussions in which the opposing arsehole doesn't "sway" me, or your cowardice.

Bitches are fun only if they're hot.
Awh, he's a misogynist as well. How cute. We've got another one to populate our little board. :pat:

[Trojan]

I'm used to swaying opinion.

Please pardon my intrusion, but it's not just about convincing others your views are right, is it? Suppose you're having a conversation with someone and they provide you with evidence that your views on a given matter are incorrect -- what then? Isn't that an opportunity to learn something new? (Which is always a good thing, in my opinion.)

Cheers,

Michael
Excellent point and I agree. I was just taken aback by the other posters' rudeness, I took the bait! There's one like that on every board.

[Carlos]

So? What are those organizations doing to stop those rituals as you want?
MSF has sex-ed classes and provides medical care for women who have been affected by the mutilation. The Red Cross does the same. The Red Cross provides refuge for women escaping such practices, as well as safe houses where they educate the girls in places like India & Pakistan for women who are escaping dangerous domestic violence situations. With the education comes the knowledge that these women do have a choice, as do other women in their community. .

MSF and Red Cross give medical care mainly.Both are at my country also.
Both tend to don't cross the lines with politics and traditions.

Like I have been saying over and over again in this thread: education and offering choices, not forcing.
This is very fragile. What education?
Why , as I said before as an example of western misogyny, they don't start by the house?

Thanks,
Carlos

P.S.

Why you treat Adora as a bitch?
Just because sometimes she acts rude and cursing?
Pathetic.

[Adora]

MSF and Red Cross give medical care mainly.Both are at my country also.
Does your country practice FGM?

Both tend to don't cross the lines with politics and traditions.
MSF does moreso than The Red Cross. They've always had a stronger active political streak which also impacts on their funding & availability of required products (ie- they don't accept donations of pharmaceuticals from companies like Pfizer because then if the company pulls out, they loose their supply, and they understand that such acts are not real charity but just marketing coverage for the company).

This is very fragile. What education?
Like I said, sexual education for women, as well as teaching them the true consequences of allowing FGM to occur to their daughters if/when they are born. The Red Cross also provides basic medical training courses, as well as working with vocational education charities to give the women economic independence & self respect. They send people to school, build schools themselves, support international teachers residing in countries, etc etc. Education and choices, like I said. I also know that in countries like Pakistan, they co-ordinate with various rights groups and quite often, local and international members of the Red Cross are also members of these groups who participate in protest rallies etc.

they don't start by the house?
Um, they do. The Red Cross is all over the world, working with homeless people, domestic violence against anyone who comes to them, sexual abuse, equal working rights & pay etc etc. London, the US, Australia, Zimbabwe, Israel, wherever. They're there everywhere. Like you said, the Red Cross is in your country too. They work everywhere, and no one place is "the house".

MSF was established with a specific reason in mind: to provide medical care, health, and scientific/technological improvements to those people in areas where they are normally not available to most citizens. So they're less likely to have established bases in Minority world nations where health care is available to most people.

[Carlos]

MSF and Red Cross give medical care mainly.Both are at my country also.
Does your country practice FGM?
You are the one who should know. I don't even know what the hell FGM stands for.
Is that like the FBI or CIA? (OK laugh, this is a joke for you)
Did you forget about my lack of English skills?

Both tend to don't cross the lines with politics and traditions.
MSF does moreso than The Red Cross. They've always had a stronger active political streak which also impacts on their funding & availability of required products (ie- they don't accept donations of pharmaceuticals from companies like Pfizer because then if the company pulls out, they loose their supply, and they understand that such acts are not real charity but just marketing coverage for the company).
I meant with political and traditions of the country they are assisting.

This is very fragile. What education?
Like I said, sexual education for women, as well as teaching them the true consequences of allowing FGM to occur to their daughters if/when they are born. The Red Cross also provides basic medical training courses, as well as working with vocational education charities to give the women .
Yes, what they think it is the correct sexual education for women.

they don't start by the house?
Um, they do. The Red Cross is all over the world, working with homeless people, domestic violence against anyone who comes to them, sexual abuse, equal working rights & pay etc etc. London, the US, Australia, Zimbabwe, Israel, wherever. They're there everywhere. Like you said, the Red Cross is in your country too. They work everywhere, and no one place is "the house".

MSF was established with a specific reason in mind: to provide medical care, health, and scientific/technological improvements to those people in areas where they are normally not available to most citizens. So they're less likely to have established bases in Minority world nations where health care is available to most people.

I meant about the USA misogyny ( you skip that part, as well as the one about the cámera)

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

You are the one who should know.
No, I don't, since I don't even know what your country is.

I don't even know what the hell FGM stands for.
Try google.

Did you forget about my lack of English skills?
No, but once again, I overestimate your ability to read a thread. I overestimated your intelligence by guessing you would have noticed we were talking about Female Genital Mutilation earlier.

I meant with political and traditions of the country they are assisting.
Proper English plz.

Yes, what they think it is the correct sexual education for women.
Well yes, the one that's best for the women's health, sexual and otherwise, and the one that's the best we have right now because it has improved the lives of most of the women it has been applied to the world over.

As per previous discussions in this thread.

I meant about the USA misogyny ( you skip that part,
No, I didn't. As I pointed out, they deal with domestic and sexual violence (ie- the crimes of misogyny), sexual & gender inequalities and education the world over.

Carlos, if you're not going to bother reading what I type, I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore. You're not worth it, and obviously, never have been.

[Carlos]

You are the one who should know.
No, I don't, since I don't even know what your country is.
Yes you do. I already told you when the topic of Lorena Bobbit was discussed. Bad memory?

I don't even know what the hell FGM stands for.
Try google.
Hmmm I am lazy . Fundación García Muñoz?
I prefer you to enlight me.

Did you forget about my lack of English skills?
No, but once again, I overestimate your ability to read a thread. I overestimated your intelligence by guessing you would have noticed we were talking about Female Genital Mutilation earlier.
I knew that. It is hard for you to put it that way, CDV*?
CDV* ( don't try google).
Besides the topic is about a more general topic.Not just genital mutilation.Even the FMG was the first time it appeared that way.
Of course with your pseudo skeptical skills.

I meant with political and traditions of the country they are assisting.
Proper English plz.
Enlight me. Corrections of my poor English are welcome. Even with this statement.
But you know what I mean.Don't skip the point.
Both organizations don't interfer with political and traditions of the places where they are giving medical assistence.

Yes, what they think it is the correct sexual education for women.
Well yes, the one that's best for the women's health, sexual and otherwise, and the one that's the best we have right now because it has improved the lives of most of the women it has been applied to the world over.

As per previous discussions in this thread.
And?

I meant about the USA misogyny ( you skip that part,
No, I didn't. As I pointed out, they deal with domestic and sexual violence (ie- the crimes of misogyny), sexual & gender inequalities and education the world over.
They deal with: medical problems derivated of domestic and sexual violence.
Just that.
USA misogyny needs some menthal care of their population.

Carlos, if you're not going to bother reading what I type, I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore. You're not worth it, and obviously, never have been.
Your pseudo intellectual arguments will be exposed every time I read it.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Hmmm I am lazy.
Then Carlos, I'm not going to bother with this conversation anymore. If you're too lazy to even try keeping up with basic facts, you're not worth it.

Have a nice day.

[Carlos]

Hmmm I am lazy.
Then Carlos, I'm not going to bother with this conversation anymore. If you're too lazy to even try keeping up with basic facts, you're not worth it.

Have a nice day.

TRANSLATION: " My pseudo intelletual argument didn't work again, but I am going to try to appear polite and smart at forum about his "lazy" sarcastic answer"

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Right right. Of course. I suppose in your world of imbeciles and retards expecting someone to keep up with the conversation is considered "pseudo-intellectual" Carlos, and actually comprehending a basic sentence would be truly intellectual! I guess it must be frightening to a moron like yourself when you move into a circle where the IQ is slightly higher than the average shoe size. That's okay. You just keep on trying to derail a thread whenever the concepts get too hard for you to comprehend, and I'll keep on pointing and laughing.

[Carlos]

Right right. Of course. I suppose in your world of imbeciles and retards expecting someone to keep up with the conversation is considered "pseudo-intellectual" Carlos, and actually comprehending a basic sentence would be truly intellectual! I guess it must be frightening to a moron like yourself when you move into a circle where the IQ is slightly higher than the average shoe size. That's okay. You just keep on trying to derail a thread whenever the concepts get too hard for you to comprehend, and I'll keep on pointing and laughing.
TRANSLATION : "I am back on a corner with my pseudo intellectual argument that I am even lying to myself; I am still replying to the asshole who discovered my humbug.
And I read all his posts , arghhhhh, why I can not ignore him?".

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

What humbug?

[Carlos]

What humbug?
Your farce: your pseudo intellectual arguments and your evation noted when you had been discovered in.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Carlos, let me spell it out slowly because you seem not to be grasping what I am asking:

What farce? Where? Point out the quotes, and supposedly where I have failed to provide evidence. Back up your assertions with facts. I know this is a new concept to you, but you can think of this excercise as practice for the real thing in actual debates.

[Carlos]

Carlos, let me spell it out slowly because you seem not to be grasping what I am asking:

What farce? Where? Point out the quotes, and supposedly where I have failed to provide evidence. Back up your assertions with facts. I know this is a new concept to you, but you can think of this excercise as practice for the real thing in actual debates.

TRANSLATION : "More of my pseudo intellectual bla bla bla."

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Evasion noted ;D, Carlos.

[Carlos]

Evasion noted ;D, Carlos.
TRANSLATION: " I hope Carlos forgot that I was the author of the post 59 of this topic, where I picked up his sarcastic "lazy stuff" and replied it out of context and evaded the rest of his reply to me."

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Evasion noted, Carlos ;D.

[Carlos]

Evasion noted, Carlos ;D.

TRANSLATION : "Grrrrrrrrrrrrr, Carlos noticed I evaded the conversation at my post 59 and eluded the rest of his reply , grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr "

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Evasion noted, Carlos.

[Carlos]

Evasion noted, Carlos.
TRANSLATION : "Grrrrrrrrrrrrr, Carlos noticed I evaded the conversation at my post 59 and eluded the rest of his reply . Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I can not ignore this asshole "

Thanks,
Carlos

[Adora]

Evasion noted, Carlos.

[Carlos]

Evasion noted, Carlos.
TRANSLATION : "Grrrrrrrrrrrrr, Carlos noticed I evaded the conversation at my post 59 and eluded the rest of his reply .Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

[xyza]

Well this thread was well and truely killed :rolldead:

[Carlos]

They were educated by western . Now they wear brassieres.Ironic.

http://www.vozdovento.blogger.com.br/indios.jpg

[Trojan]

What was this thread about again??

[Adora]

After Carlos's last post of particularly random gibberish (even for him), I haven't a clue.

[MooseIBe]

What was this thread about again??

It was about ritualistic mutilation and 'adornment' of people without their consent and whether that was ever justified :). It was also about the way that people use the words 'tradition' and 'culture' to justify doing things that are cruel and unnecessary. Plus, I think I made the observation that Westerners can tend to be rather patronisingly 'precious' about non-Western culture (which prevents them speaking up and saying 'hey, this is a BAD thing to do to your children) because they afford it a semi-mystic status (so primitive! So unspoiled!) which they would never dream of affording the more brutal and unpleasant traditions which the West has embraced and discarded over the years.

[xyza]

Think it could be split into three catogories at least Moose

Those who think that it is their god given right to interfer in cultures that they know little about.

Those who think that those cultures should be left to learn about those things, the same way the more advanced cultures did.

And

Those who don't give a shit either way.

[Adora]

I think you've got it wrong, xyza, on all accounts.

How did "Western culture" learn about things? Certainly not through isolationism and introvertered thinking, but only through external cultural influences, mixing, conflict and growth, as is the same with other cultures who experienced long periods of stagnant isolationism and were then introduced to the rest of the world (eg - Japan). If we are to supposedly allow other cultures to learn about things the same way Western culture did, then there's no problem with exporting or introducing things to other cultures. Nobody has the right to enforce something on another culture, but providing choices is how Western culture evolved.

And "god given right"? Who said anything about a skybrat? As a spoilt brat of Western culture who can afford to sit on the internet and debate these things, you have a duty to try and improve the lives of those who don't have the opportunity for global communication. No, you don't try and make them better, but you offer them options and choices they didn't have before without your involvement. Isolationism of self and others is nothing but lazy selfishness.

[xyza]

You don't have the first idea about what I do though Adora.

I totally agree with what you have said about giving choices but some of the things in this thread have been posted in a way that sounds far more as someone else said missionary style.
Most of these cultures do mix with more civilised cultures, they will get there in the end if we are talking about those that are still out in the sticks somewhere.
Our govenments should do more than just making female circumcision illegal in our counrtries, the health visitors and medical staff know those children who are at risk and if the parents "go home" to have the operation carried out then they should be punished for it, just as those who perform the operation illegally in the country.
It is nowhere near the same lines as the "X case" in Ireland, after all.

[Adora]

You don't have the first idea about what I do though Adora.
And neither do you, but at least I didn't blatantly generalise with my last comment.

but some of the things in this thread have been posted in a way that sounds far more as someone else said missionary style.
Examples?

It is nowhere near the same lines as the "X case" in Ireland, after all.
I agree totally. Many Western countries give women and girlchildren at risk of such mutilation refugee rights. On the most basic level, it's mutilation and a violation of the rights of the child to have a safety of the body. On a more complex level, it's part of the overall practice of misogyny in such cultures, which needs to be stamped out, and the right to control their bodies needs to be given back to the women (which is the exact opposite of the X case, as you mentioned, that deprived a woman of the right to control her body, and a child the right to have safety of their body).

[Carlos]

but some of the things in this thread have been posted in a way that sounds far more as someone else said missionary style.
Examples?


All your pseudo intellectual argument and your evasion to mantain a conversation.

Thanks,
Carlos

[MooseIBe]

I haven't intentionally said anything 'missionary style' and as people may or may not be aware I don't approve of religious missions for more reasons than I have time to go into at the moment :). I don't think that this is a question of religion though. People who are mutilating young girls (and sometimes boys) are not, usually, doing it in the name of religion. It's a form of control and ownership and, perhaps also, a mistaken way of asserting identity ('you belong to us and to make sure everyone knows it we're gonna scratch our name on your forehead').

Adora is right .. in the West we didn't get where we are today by being isolationist and refusing to learn from other cultures, nor to share our culture with other people. Why is it that NOW we're too frightened to say that certain things are wrong and shouldn't be done and that certain ways of life are brutal and detrimental to the people (women?) who are forced to live them? Well, because we're afraid of being accused of being white capitalist pig-dogs, of course, and not without reason because we've certainly been white capitalist pig-dogs in the past. But I don't think that this is an issue of race, or of saying 'we're so much better than you, let us show you how WE do it.' It's about protecting vulnerable people.

[MooseIBe]

Most of these cultures do mix with more civilised cultures, they will get there in the end if we are talking about those that are still out in the sticks somewhere.

I dunno though.. i mean, 'the end' could be another 500 years. Why make people suffer till then?

BTW I hope noone thinks that I want to see everyone, you know, swigging coca cola or listening to American rap music on their ipods. I am not saying that in order for culture to be 'good' it has to be Western. I am just talking about the very negative aspects of some cultures that I think we have a duty - forgive me if that sounds horribly pompous - to do something about. Yeah, they might eventually 'grow out of it' but how many little girls will have their genitals mutilated in the decades or centuries that that might take? How many boys are going to have their foreskins ripped off without anaesthetic to prove how brave they are?

[MooseIBe]

Just to bump this, I've started this topic on another forum I go to albeit in a slightly different form and I've been bloody irritated by how many of the 'more liberal than thou' brigade seem to think that it's fine to mutiliate children, that it's fine to rip little girls' genitals off, that we mustn't interfere because it's not our place to do so. Fuck that.

[Adora]

Indeed. Fuckwits!

[MooseIBe]

fucking buggery cunting fuckwits.

Sorry am really pissed off.

[livius drusus]

Have you seen this story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/22/wdebt22.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/22/ixportal.html), Moose?

[MooseIBe]

oh man .. no .. that really suck. Although I suppose it's something that the girls are refusing to go and that so far their father is refusing to hand them over..

[livius drusus]

I think it's a good illustration that the interfere/don't interfere dichotomy doesn't really work. People within the culture may well want change too, but have to face a wide panoply of dangers to effectuate it, dangers that outsiders aren't going to have to contend with.

[MooseIBe]

Yeah fair point :)

[Adora]

I think it's a good illustration that the interfere/don't interfere dichotomy doesn't really work.
How so? Sorry, I just don't understand what you're getting at. Are you saying this illustrates the dichotomy doesn't exist? Or that in such a situation, because an exceptional case involves people inside the community resisting cultural prejudice, no inteference is needed?

[livius drusus]

I have yet to meet the dichotomy which accurately depicted a situation. Non-interference advocates assume that there are no people inside the community resisting hideous custom x, that external interference can only ever be an imposition on an unwilling culture, when in fact it can be a support for people within the community who have to go through hell to combat hideous custom x.

[MooseIBe]

Well I agree with the last part yeah .. if I am interpreting it right :). Intereference can be a help for people within the community to combat a practice from within and that's fine.. I can't imagine why anyone would have an issue with that. But I don't understand - and have been surprised to encounter - people who get on their soap boxes saying that noone should ever interfere, that it's wrong to interfere, to let people do things in their own time. Even if there are people working from within the communities, and that's great, it doesn't hurt to help them and I don't think it makes us imperialist pig dogs (nto that you were saying that it did but I seem to have been encountering this pov a lot).

[Carnivale Ed]

I think the non-interference thing comes from a belief that, unless change is initiated from within, it won't stick. An attack on a cultural practice, even an abhorrent one to 'our' eyes, might be perceived as an attack on the culture as a whole. You might actually end up forcing the culture to close ranks and embrace such a practice all the more, as a sort of protest against outside interference. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

On the other hand, simply leading by example may not work either.

Personally, I don't know, it's tricky.

[livius drusus]

Even if there are people working from within the communities, and that's great, it doesn't hurt to help them and I don't think it makes us imperialist pig dogs (nto that you were saying that it did but I seem to have been encountering this pov a lot).

Right, Moose. It's that point of view which I think is a false dichotomy. Basically what they're saying is that the supporters of hideous custom x in any given community are the real representatives of the culture and shouldn't be interefered with, even if just to judge their actions by our personal mores, nevermind out-and-out intervention.

Why should upholders of hideous custom x get privileged cultural purity status? Why not the people within the community who oppose the custom?

[Carnivale Ed]

Why should upholders of hideous custom x get privileged cultural purity status? Why not the people within the community who oppose the custom?
The logic has to be that hideous custom x predates any of the individuals now practicing or decrying it. To defend it is to be a 'good' memeber of the community, respectful of your people's history and heritage. Advocating change is to be a 'bad' member, one who fails to appreciate where he/she came from.

Not saying I agree, that's just the logic.

[livius drusus]

I can see how that would be the logic of the traditionalist position within a culture, but by what logic do non-intereference advocates grant that point of view privileged status? Do they think culture is or should be static?

[Carnivale Ed]

I can see how that would be the logic of the traditionalist position within a culture, but by what logic do non-intereference advocates grant that point of view privileged status?
I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here, but I'm not sure priveliged is the right word. The mere fact that a practice exists, and has existed, is enough reason to think twice before interfering with it. That is, it's a known quantity. No one cultural practice exists in isolation from another, or the culture as a whole, so it's not as simple as saying, 'You should stop doing that and everything else will be fine.' There can be unintended consequences that reverberate across the whole community.

Take the Pakistani example from above. Those girls were married off to seal a peace in line with a traditional cultural practice. Ignoring the fact that the girls had no say in it, this was apparently acceptable to the girls' families at the time the hostilities were taking place. Now, what if, twenty years ago, some government official from outside this community structure, with the best of intentions, had denied them the opportunity to make this pact under the idea that marrying off children was abhorrent? Unless the culture had another viable way to settle the dispute, the feud might have continued on until everyone, including the girls, was dead. Hardly a more positive outcome (I know that's a very simplistic presentation of the facts, I'm just trying to simplify for the sake of argument).

Do they think culture is or should be static?
No culture in history has ever been completely static. I think the idea is that a culture must develop at it's own pace. To use the above example again, viable opposition to marrying off children to forge a peace can only exist if some other means of making peace exists. The fact that the girls (and their families) are credibly challenging the practice today, a thought presumably unthinkable twenty years ago, suggests that the community is now at least aware that this might not be the most effective manner of dispute resolution.

[MooseIBe]

You've both got some good points. I might have said this before and I can't be bothered to wade back to see if I did but I think there's something vaguely offensive about the notion that OUR culture can change - can cease to burn witches, can cease to burn people of the 'wrong' religion, can cease to traffic in slaves - but that tribal cultures either can't or shouldn't. I mean .. our countries, well especially mine, have had such pretty shitty traditions in the past and noone's saying 'hell, we shouldn't have let those die out, that's our heritage!'. But some people seem opposed to the idea that a third world country can make similar progress.

Okay I CAN see some flaws in what I just said, namely that most, though not all , of the change in our own cultures came from within. But some of it was forced by actions that caused an immense amount of agitation TO those communities by what could be seen to be outsiders - think of the abolition of slavery and the US civil war for instance. Noone would argue that that outcome was a bad one, and yet it was brought about by one set of people - maybe within the same country, but bitterly divided - opposing the cultural practices of another (I know that there was a shit load more to the Civil War than slavery but it was at least a factor).

Liv, it's a good question as to why the traditionalists have superior status conferred on them and I don't know. Seems disingenuous to say the least.

Sometimes I think we can be just too ... liberal, though that's not quite the word really ... for our own good. We let terrible things flourish because we're too hesitant to stand up and say 'excuse ME, mutiliating little girls is a fucking terrible thing to do, stop it right now' and we're too keen to uphold the rights of people to do things that they shouldn't be doing anyway (one of the people on this other thread I've been posting on countered me by saying 'how would you feel if these people interefered in YOUR country?'. And I thought well fuck it, you know, if we were mutilating little girls I would welcome their interference with open arms and thank them for it. They seemed to equate interefering in the matter of FGM as being tantamount to having a tribe from Papua New Guinea marching down Charing Cross Road telling people that they can't drive Cortinas. Not the fucking same thing!).

sorry I will stop preaching now ;)

[MooseIBe]

boy this other forum is really pissing me off .. I only joined it cos a friend kept urging me to do so. Am on the verge of telling them to go fuck themselves.

[Adora]

I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here, but I'm not sure priveliged is the right word. The mere fact that a practice exists, and has existed, is enough reason to think twice before interfering with it.
No, it's not. Cultural practice != sacred untouchable bullshit. In fact, the more ingrained a practice is in a culture, the more people should be asking why, questioning it, and deconstructing it, because most likely, it is responsible or a symptom of so much of the environment they exist in. If you don't understand something that is so fundamental to your being, you have no hope of even starting to comprehend the world around you.

Ignoring the fact that the girls had no say in it, this was apparently acceptable to the girls' families at the time the hostilities were taking place.
Not necessarily. The families commiting the violence may not have been aware of the laws. Do you know all the legal rights, compensations and juris you're entitled to, down to the last decimal place? Also, it's a common thought in such feuds that there will eventually be no more of the other family left if one side is successful to claim compensation. You simply can't logically leap that because the family who was fighting fought, they were okay with the daughters being sold off as batering chips.

Now, what if, twenty years ago, some government official from outside this community structure, with the best of intentions, had denied them the opportunity to make this pact under the idea that marrying off children was abhorrent?
What's your point? Barbarians should be placated just because they are barbarians?

Unless the culture had another viable way to settle the dispute, the feud might have continued on until everyone, including the girls, was dead.
So the will and choices of the violent perpetrators are totally ignored in this situation? To take this sort of stance is to condone feud violence, which is just pathetic.

Hardly a more positive outcome (I know that's a very simplistic presentation of the facts, I'm just trying to simplify for the sake of argument).
Yes, it is very simplistic, because it denies the responsibility of the violent perpetrators and ignores all other vaiable options such as mediated discussion and monetary/land compensation (ie- compensation not involving slavery).

No culture in history has ever been completely static. I think the idea is that a culture must develop at it's own pace.
"At it's own pace" does not translate as "isolationism". Even the most isolated cultures had contact with the outside cultures at some point and learned much from them, and often, those countries who remained in isolationism for long periods of time were torn down violently because they believed, because of isolationism, in their own propaganda. Homogenisation breeds weakness, in all areas of life. The best culture is one that is the most adaptive and inclusive.

To use the above example again, viable opposition to marrying off children to forge a peace can only exist if some other means of making peace exists.
Which does not happen in isolation, as you said. The only thing slavery in any form has sated is uncomprimising egos of the slavemasters. You're suggesting that such a practice that demands massive compromise on one side and hardly any on the other be condoned. Such a practice has never been able to be substantiated by any culture, and thus is abhorrent, even to those within a culture.

[Carnivale Ed]

No, it's not. Cultural practice != sacred untouchable bullshit.
I didn't say untouchable, did I? I said it was worth thinking twice about.

In fact, the more ingrained a practice is in a culture, the more people should be asking why, questioning it, and deconstructing it, because most likely, it is responsible or a symptom of so much of the environment they exist in. If you don't understand something that is so fundamental to your being, you have no hope of even starting to comprehend the world around you.
Which people? Outsiders or members of the community? Depending on which cultures we're talking about, a less 'civilised' society might not have much of a tradition of deconstructing anything. That's kind of the point. Contact with outsiders might cause them to look at their practices in a new way and expand their worldview, but to what extent is it 'healthy' for them to just abandon something that might be fundamental to their way of life without proper consideration of the consequences? How much worse if a 'ban' of some sort is imposed upon them?

Not necessarily. The families commiting the violence may not have been aware of the laws. Do you know all the legal rights, compensations and juris you're entitled to, down to the last decimal place? Also, it's a common thought in such feuds that there will eventually be no more of the other family left if one side is successful to claim compensation. You simply can't logically leap that because the family who was fighting fought, they were okay with the daughters being sold off as batering chips.
Point taken, but I specifically constructed my argument to say that was the case. What then?

What's your point? Barbarians should be placated just because they are barbarians?
Well, my point immediately followed the question I posed:

Unless the culture had another viable way to settle the dispute, the feud might have continued on until everyone, including the girls, was dead.
So the will and choices of the violent perpetrators are totally ignored in this situation? To take this sort of stance is to condone feud violence, which is just pathetic.
I'm not arguing 'what should be', I'm just pointing out 'what is' (or, more correctly, 'what may have been'). You've leapt right over the point of the discussion and gone right to the end. Feud violence is definitely 'bad', but how do you remove it from a society that practices it without a viable alternative? As I said before, nothing exists in isolation. Change one thing, and another must necessarily change in turn. If a practice is central enough to a community, changing it could have a snowball effect that makes the society practically unrecognisable overnight. And, if that change comes as a result of an outside imposition, how much resentment do you breed? Do you just drive the practice underground and make them cling to it all the harder because of your interference? That's why I said earlier that leading by example may be a more effective tool.

Yes, it is very simplistic, because it denies the responsibility of the violent perpetrators and ignores all other vaiable options such as mediated discussion and monetary/land compensation (ie- compensation not involving slavery).
This is the snowball effect I was talking about. All the things you mention could possibly be entirely new concepts for a community. If they are, you've just gone a long way to making their society a carbon-copy of ours, Christian missionary-style.

"At it's own pace" does not translate as "isolationism". Even the most isolated cultures had contact with the outside cultures at some point and learned much from them, and often, those countries who remained in isolationism for long periods of time were torn down violently because they believed, because of isolationism, in their own propaganda. Homogenisation breeds weakness, in all areas of life. The best culture is one that is the most adaptive and inclusive.
Agreed, but is that what you're advocating? The complete tearing down of cultures that are not as adaptive and inclusive as our own, with all the subsequent misery for the people you might be trying to help?

Also, I would point out that there's a vast difference between a community adapting to a new concept on its own and that same community having a new concept imposed upon them.

Which does not happen in isolation, as you said. The only thing slavery in any form has sated is uncomprimising egos of the slavemasters. You're suggesting that such a practice that demands massive compromise on one side and hardly any on the other be condoned. Such a practice has never been able to be substantiated by any culture, and thus is abhorrent, even to those within a culture.
I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm suggesting that a distasteful practice might be tolerated for a period of time because, ultimately, that will be more effective in seeing it disappear forever.

[Adora]

I didn't say untouchable, did I? I said it was worth thinking twice about.
Same thing. One only thinks twice about things others hold sacred.

Which people? Outsiders or members of the community?
All of the above.

Depending on which cultures we're talking about, a less 'civilised' society might not have much of a tradition of deconstructing anything. That's kind of the point. Contact with outsiders might cause them to look at their practices in a new way and expand their worldview, but to what extent is it 'healthy' for them to just abandon something that might be fundamental to their way of life without proper consideration of the consequences?
If it is that easy to abandon, then it is not fundamental. If the practice of analysis of culture isn't widespread, then, as you say, it's less "civilised" and therefore less likely to change in the first place, even if large numbers of citizens are suffering. Even if those members are suffering, and fighting, and resisting the dominant culture, they still need help from those more privileged both within and outside the society.

How much worse if a 'ban' of some sort is imposed upon them?
Better for those who suffer under cultural practices, who are the only ones who matter in such cases. When a crime is committed you ask, "Who benefits?" When cultures are studied by anthropologists, archaeologists, and other social scientists, the same questions are asked of practices where there is obviously a group of people seriously suffering at the hands of another in a society. If banning such practices improves their lives, then in this case, members of the society's lives are improved.

Point taken, but I specifically constructed my argument to say that was the case. What then?
In that case I still see no point. These people are then both murderers and complicit perpatrators of slavery and rape. Who benefits? The ones who get away with murder, and the equally barbaric compensated families.

I'm not arguing 'what should be', I'm just pointing out 'what is' (or, more correctly, 'what may have been').
And I am pointing out "what is" as well. Perpetrators of violence in your example are self-aware human beings with the powers of choice. In such situations, what is the case, are cycles of crimes being committed over and over again to benefit a few minorities.

Feud violence is definitely 'bad', but how do you remove it from a society that practices it without a viable alternative?
There is no such thing as a society lacking a viable alternative. Even in the case of the Niazi family, the alternative is exhausting the secular legal avenues in the country to have the perpetrators of the murders brought to justice. Name me a real, existing, "is" society that lacks a viable alternative and you can begin to discuss the difference between hypothetical societies and actual societies.

If a practice is central enough to a community, changing it could have a snowball effect that makes the society practically unrecognisable overnight. And, if that change comes as a result of an outside imposition, how much resentment do you breed?
It depends on the practice, and, as mentioned, who benefits.

Do you just drive the practice underground and make them cling to it all the harder because of your interference? That's why I said earlier that leading by example may be a more effective tool.
Okay, first of all this whole "driving underground" rhetoric is pure crap. Jihad, a perfect barbaric example of such bullshit is not "underground". It's a well-funded global phenomenon promoted in the mainstream society of such cultures as much as joining the army and being good cannonfodder is in Wester cultures.

Second, even if you do somehow "drive it underground" you've still got the society changing by itself, even if the first push may have come from outside. That means that the majority of the population wants what is happening, and therefore there will be other avenues available in the culture which is the whole point of cultural diversity. Whereas first there was isolationism and dangerous homogenisation, there is then diversification and strength.

All the things you mention could possibly be entirely new concepts for a community. If they are, you've just gone a long way to making their society a carbon-copy of ours, Christian missionary-style.
Thank you for that entirely simplistic reading of both Christian missionaries and the way cultures work. It is never one-way. Ever. There is always culture exchange back and forth between them. It may be uneven at times due to technological advantages in one culture over another, but there is always two-way exchanges. Even by exposing a technologically dominant society to a less technological one and them colonising it, you always have elements of the subjugated society working their way into the dominant one. There is no mass-culture-printing machine that stamps itself onto whatever culture it comes into contact with, even in the boogey-man US.

Agreed, but is that what you're advocating? The complete tearing down of cultures that are not as adaptive and inclusive as our own, with all the subsequent misery for the people you might be trying to help?
Could you be any more patronising? If these people want what is offered, they can have it. If they don't, they can throw it away. If enough people want what is offered, and benefit most from the changes, then the society will adapt. I'm talking about basic is facts here.

Also, I would point out that there's a vast difference between a community adapting to a new concept on its own and that same community having a new concept imposed upon them.
And I'm saying there's no such thing. You can't learn something that you don't already know, to use a cliche. In said societies that practice slavery-compensation there has always been resistance. Inserting human rights discourses into said societies doesn't "impose" anything on them, but just gives validation to those who have resisted the barbaric and unquestioned practices for so long.

I'm not suggesting any such thing. I'm suggesting that a distasteful practice might be tolerated for a period of time because, ultimately, that will be more effective in seeing it disappear forever.
And I'm suggesting that is never the case, anywhere. Crimes are tolerated because they give a certain group power and then continue that power structure in a society. There's nothing "effective" about a society that homogenises itself in such ways and denies the basic social requirement for those people in the evolution of said society. In fact, think about it in evolutionary terms: the diversity of the society in its environment is more beneficial to the whole than homogenisation, because it can adapt easier. If there is already the genetic (or social) programming for it to adapt a certain way when it is introduced to a new environment/other culture, it will, because it already has that potential and wants it to survive and that is the only definer of what is effective or not. If it doesn't it won't. A society can deny this all it wants, but, as I mentioned, said societies tend to get a nice wake-up call either from Mother Nature or another society with better technology once in a while. What we know from experience is that the most effective society is one that is diverse, self-reflective and adaptive, not one that is homogenised, "uncivilised" and stagnant.

Edit: Removed all the incorrect "Adora" labels on quotes. Sorry.

[JoeP]

You've both got some good points. I might have said this before and I can't be bothered to wade back to see if I did but I think there's something vaguely offensive about the notion that OUR culture can change - can cease to burn witches, can cease to burn people of the 'wrong' religion, can cease to traffic in slaves - but that tribal cultures either can't or shouldn't. I mean .. our countries, well especially mine, have had such pretty shitty traditions in the past and noone's saying 'hell, we shouldn't have let those die out, that's our heritage!'. But some people seem opposed to the idea that a third world country can make similar progress.
I am not following threads very well this evening. Maybe I'm tired or maybe I'm just lazy. Not all the points in this thread have penetrated into my rational brain, but something occurred to me about this one: one major difference between 'western' culture changing over time and 'other' cultures being changed now is that 'we' did ourselves, therefore somehow at the right pace.

I agree with (whoever's saying it) that imposing so-called western cultural norms is th right thing in the case of female genital mutilation - no doubt. But as a general principle, imposing one culture on another, even if it has some good results, is going to have unforeseen negative consequences. We (humanity overall) don't understand the consequences of our actions, despite the arrogance that we think we do. Especially the arrogance that gods justify it.

[MooseIBe]

Well I am not talking about forcing everyone in the world to eat McDonald's or drink Pepsi or live like we do .. far from it :). Really I am talking specifically about human rights' violations which are carried out in the name of 'tradition.' That's as far as I would go in 'interefering'...

BTW in my country a lot of the greatest benefits to society came about through an alien culture plonking itself down in our soil and spreading their ideas ;) (vide the Romans and the Normans). Not that I am saying we should do that these days but still .. it's not entirely true that all our change came from within.

[Carlos]

Well I am not talking about forcing everyone in the world to eat McDonald's or drink Pepsi or live like we do .. far from it :). Really I am talking specifically about human rights' violations which are carried out in the name of 'tradition.' That's as far as I would go in 'interefering'...

.

What about their rights when western Society are forcing them to adopt Western's tradition?
For example brassieres or to cover their traditional nudity.

http://www.vozdovento.blogger.com.br/indios.jpg

Why not seeing Western's society intromission on their traditions?

Thanks,
Carlos

[MooseIBe]

I don't know what intromission means. Plus, I doubt very much that anyone FORCED those women to put those bras on.

[Carlos]

I don't know what intromission means. Plus, I doubt very much that anyone FORCED those women to put those bras on.

FORCED, intromission or brainwash is the same thing.

Just imagine the same woman walking naked ( as it was their cultural tradition before Western intromission ) at the Fifth Avenue of New Yorlk and tell me what would the authorities do.

Thanks,
Carlos

[The Lone Ranger]

"Intromission" means to insert one thing into another -- it's often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

Perhaps you mean "intervention"? It seems closer in meaning to what you seem to be implying.

Cheers,

Michael

[Carlos]

"Intromission" means to insert one thing into another -- it's often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.


LOL . I see , I am using an incorrect word. Even a word that seems to have an use for having "fun" . LOL

Let me tell you that intromisión( the Spanish word ) means kind the same ( to penetrate) but also means a kind of action that refers to people who get in somewhere without being told to do it or to get in . Sorry , I was angloing the word and the meaning.
Besides my English is not so good.

Perhaps you mean "intervention"? It seems closer in meaning to what you seem to be implying.

Cheers,

Michael

Well, if that fixs better the idea , and you really got my point and idea , "intervention" is good enough.
Although an intervention not necesarilly suit completely the spanish meaning of intromisión.
We also have intervención that suits more the "intervention" English word. An intervención not necesarilly has a moral/ethics/ implication and I was trying to point that.

I appreciate your response Michael , it was very helpful to me, and I hope to the rest of members here, in order to clarify concepts and my own English mistake.


Thanks,
Carlos

[Carnivale Ed]

Why must our posts be so long?

Same thing. One only thinks twice about things others hold sacred.
No, one thinks twice about things that are important and have consequences. But let's not get bogged down with this.

If it is that easy to abandon, then it is not fundamental.
You’re right, I wrote quick, this was only appropriate in the case of a ban – that outsiders shouldn’t interfere with a cultural practice unless they fully understand all the implications of doing so, though, was my point.

If the practice of analysis of culture isn't widespread, then, as you say, it's less "civilised" and therefore less likely to change in the first place, even if large numbers of citizens are suffering. Even if those members are suffering, and fighting, and resisting the dominant culture, they still need help from those more privileged both within and outside the society.
I agree that a less ‘civilised’ culture isn’t likely to change on its own, but you have to give it some time to evolve once it’s exposed to new ideas. I take your point about assisting a movement for change, but would only agree after a credible ‘native’ movement has developed on its own (presumably, through knowledge of alternatives present in other cultures). To continue the Pakistani example : I’d find it acceptable to rally around the young girls’ cause today, but not twenty years ago, because, on the face of it, no one native to the culture was credibly challenging it at the time.

Better for those who suffer under cultural practices, who are the only ones who matter in such cases. When a crime is committed you ask, "Who benefits?" When cultures are studied by anthropologists, archaeologists, and other social scientists, the same questions are asked of practices where there is obviously a group of people seriously suffering at the hands of another in a society. If banning such practices improves their lives, then in this case, members of the society's lives are improved.
Maybe, but only if the dominated people want to be liberated. I believe in objective standards of right and wrong, but I would never presume to impose these standards on others unless it was clear that they agreed with them and only lacked the ability to implement them themselves.

In that case I still see no point. These people are then both murderers and complicit perpatrators of slavery and rape. Who benefits? The ones who get away with murder, and the equally barbaric compensated families.
As I said, I believe in some objective standard of right and wrong, but I’m also aware that these things can be seen as subjective. If trading young girls was normal practice at the time this deal was made then, culturally, these people wouldn’t consider themselves as having done anything wrong. Intervention would only be appropriate, in my opinion, if the ‘victims’ were asking for help and, even then, only if their request was indicative of a larger movement within the society. There’s no point in interfering in a solitary case unless a viable alternative can be offered for the long term. Otherwise, you do nothing towards changing the society, you’re just a ‘meddler’ who hasn’t understood the full implications of his/her actions (in our example, the continuation of the feud).

And I am pointing out "what is" as well. Perpetrators of violence in your example are self-aware human beings with the powers of choice. In such situations, what is the case, are cycles of crimes being committed over and over again to benefit a few minorities.
‘Crime’ can be a subjective term. I believe you’re right, however, but, if the people and the culture involved don’t, then there’s not much you or I can do about it (except, perhaps, lead by example). A person’s power of choice is limited by their experience – you first have to convince someone that something is a crime before they’re able to consider themselves a criminal.

There is no such thing as a society lacking a viable alternative. Even in the case of the Niazi family, the alternative is exhausting the secular legal avenues in the country to have the perpetrators of the murders brought to justice. Name me a real, existing, "is" society that lacks a viable alternative and you can begin to discuss the difference between hypothetical societies and actual societies.
This is all appropriate for ‘today’ where, I’ve already conceded, I think intervention is acceptable. I think it actually helps me, too – this is a home-grown challenge to a practice that has a chance of succeeding, not a standard imposed by outsiders.

It depends on the practice, and, as mentioned, who benefits.
You don’t think it’s possible that even those who benefit from outside interference can heavily resent an intrusion into their culture?

Okay, first of all this whole "driving underground" rhetoric is pure crap. Jihad, a perfect barbaric example of such bullshit is not "underground". It's a well-funded global phenomenon promoted in the mainstream society of such cultures as much as joining the army and being good cannonfodder is in Wester cultures.
Agreed. However, though participation in jihad may technically be considered a cultural practice, in reality, I believe it’s just a fancy name for making war, and almost every culture’s been doing that since time began. I’m going to limit myself to talking about things within a culture, not the things they do to influence the outside world (which, by my definition, would make it fair game for interference anyway).

Second, even if you do somehow "drive it underground" you've still got the society changing by itself, even if the first push may have come from outside. That means that the majority of the population wants what is happening, and therefore there will be other avenues available in the culture which is the whole point of cultural diversity. Whereas first there was isolationism and dangerous homogenisation, there is then diversification and strength.
We’re talking at cross-purposes here. When I say ‘drive it underground’, I mean that a ban is imposed and maintained by some authority outside the culture. The maintenance of the ban implies that significant parts of the culture object to this interference. I have no problem with intervention if substantial elements within a culture are advocating change.

Thank you for that entirely simplistic reading of both Christian missionaries and the way cultures work. It is never one-way. Ever. There is always culture exchange back and forth between them. It may be uneven at times due to technological advantages in one culture over another, but there is always two-way exchanges. Even by exposing a technologically dominant society to a less technological one and them colonising it, you always have elements of the subjugated society working their way into the dominant one. There is no mass-culture-printing machine that stamps itself onto whatever culture it comes into contact with, even in the boogey-man US.
Okay, you’re technically right, but be fair dinkum. How much of Aboriginal culture has worked its way into mainstream Australian culture? Some, sure, but not a hell of a lot. Their culture was essentially overwhelmed by European settlement and it’s a constant struggle to keep it alive today in any significant manner.

I guess I'm just wondering about the difference between being slowly introduced to a modern society as opposed to being completely dominated by it. That is, a less 'civilised' society having the chance to evolve and incorporate new concepts into its own culture rather than having its culture instantly replaced with a new one.

Could you be any more patronising? If these people want what is offered, they can have it. If they don't, they can throw it away. If enough people want what is offered, and benefit most from the changes, then the society will adapt. I'm talking about basic is facts here.
I don’t think I was at all patronising. You’re the one who defined a 'best' culture and implied that isolationist cultures got what they deserved. I was just asking if you really thought this was appropriate.

It's the 'want what is offered' part that's most central to my argument. All I'm saying is outsiders shouldn't interfere in a culture in the absence of a 'want' from inside it (which can certainly stem from exposure to ther cultures), and that they shouldn't do so without a thorough understanding of the implications of such interference.

And I'm saying there's no such thing. You can't learn something that you don't already know, to use a cliche. In said societies that practice slavery-compensation there has always been resistance. Inserting human rights discourses into said societies doesn't "impose" anything on them, but just gives validation to those who have resisted the barbaric and unquestioned practices for so long.
If those people exist in sufficent numbers, you and I have got no argument.

And I'm suggesting that is never the case, anywhere. Crimes are tolerated because they give a certain group power and then continue that power structure in a society. There's nothing "effective" about a society that homogenises itself in such ways and denies the basic social requirement for those people in the evolution of said society. In fact, think about it in evolutionary terms: the diversity of the society in its environment is more beneficial to the whole than homogenisation, because it can adapt easier. If there is already the genetic (or social) programming for it to adapt a certain way when it is introduced to a new environment/other culture, it will, because it already has that potential and wants it to survive and that is the only definer of what is effective or not. If it doesn't it won't. A society can deny this all it wants, but, as I mentioned, said societies tend to get a nice wake-up call either from Mother Nature or another society with better technology once in a while. What we know from experience is that the most effective society is one that is diverse, self-reflective and adaptive, not one that is homogenised, "uncivilised" and stagnant.
This is all very interesting, but I don't think it serves any purpose to define what is or is not an effective culture when we're talking about what 'our' culture should do when presented with cultures that, by your definition, are not diverse, self-reflective or adaptive. That said, I think we pretty much agree...

[Adora]

Why must our posts be so long?
Because they're full of love.

No, one thinks twice about things that are important and have consequences. But let's not get bogged down with this.
No, lets.

Importance is arbitrary, hegemonic and subjective. Things that are sticklers in a society over a long period of time are constructed both by their own discourses and the rhetoric of those in the society as "sacred" in some way. They may also be incredibly profance (in fact, those things in a society that are most sacred are almost always those that are most profane) but still, sacred.

You’re right, I wrote quick, this was only appropriate in the case of a ban – that outsiders shouldn’t interfere with a cultural practice unless they fully understand all the implications of doing so, though, was my point.
And I say: if there is obviously people suffering in some form or another, that level of understanding has a cut-off point where you have to put your foot down and say, "I don't give a fuck what barbaric and unsubstantiated religious hooha you use to validate your mutilation/prejudice/racism/sexism/murder whatever. You're hurting these people and it must stop." Yes, some understanding is required to properly prevent the continuation of the suffering of the people (ie- more than just banning, but education, economic change, value change etc) but the wellbeing of actual people overrides the sacricity of any practice.

I take your point about assisting a movement for change, but would only agree after a credible ‘native’ movement has developed on its own (presumably, through knowledge of alternatives present in other cultures). To continue the Pakistani example : I’d find it acceptable to rally around the young girls’ cause today, but not twenty years ago, because, on the face of it, no one native to the culture was credibly challenging it at the time.
I disagree. Whenever such practices are enforced upon people against their will, there is always resistance. 20 years ago Phoolan Devi was part of rebel gangs who were incredibly unhappy with India's social system which basically mirrors Pakistan's (and did then as well). Just because there wasn't a bloody camera in their face doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think you're confusing outsider knowledge of dissent with actual dissent.

Maybe, but only if the dominated people want to be liberated. I believe in objective standards of right and wrong, but I would never presume to impose these standards on others unless it was clear that they agreed with them and only lacked the ability to implement them themselves.
Then your standards aren't objective. And your argument doesn't make sense. If you impose a law to protect those who agree with you, you have to give it to everyone, even if Mr Higher-Class with