"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

strobe

Ok I was going to post this in After Hours....but I can imagine how that would play out (and I'm banned from there) so I think this would be the right place for the thread.

"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

I have heard people say this many times, in relation to all kinds of topics. I suppose a few obvious examples of various degree would be: Bull fighting in Spain, the religious police in Saudi Arabia, the non democratic political system in North Korea, the age of consent in Senegal, the laws regarding homosexuality in Sudan, and the more extreme examples of Sharia law around the world.

I was just curious on what other people felt about the opinion.

Do you believe some things are just universaly wrong and culture or autonomy are no excuse? Do you believe each culture or society should be free to exist however they do and people outside of that culture should not get involved? Do you think other cultures have a right or obligation to intercede in certain situations, and if so which, what are the conditions? Who decides and how is the decision of one culture over another quantified as justifiable? Where is the line drawn and can any one culture or individual objectively draw that line with any authority? If you believe it is justifiable for culture A to intercede would it not therefore to be just as justifiable for the opposing culture B to intercede in the opposite direction over the same difference?

I have my own opinions but if it's allowed I'd prefer to reserve them for a few posts to avoid influencing the initial response of others. I will give my own opinion though.

wonderfulname

I think that some cultures need to modernise in the face of globalisation, and we who have come from quite an extreme culture ourselves in the past few decades should help them.

Some modern first world feminists have come to the conclusion female circumcision is ok within a cultural context. link This disgusts me, how can someone say such a thing and move on to talk about equality in the workplace?

Social workers in the UK for years put vitiman D deffencies in Muslim women down to poor diet due to low income, when in fact they knew the truth

Should these people have gone to the lengths they did so as not to insult other cultures? Or should they have put individuals before the masses?

Political correctness has gone too far when it is endangering the health and wellbeing of people within cultural or religious groups, purely for fear of insulting others.

Black Swan

wonderfulname wrote: »

I think that some cultures need to modernise in the face of globalisation, and we who have come from quite an extreme culture ourselves in the past few decades should help them.

How do you propose to "help" them?

looksee

"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

I have heard people say this many times, in relation to all kinds of topics. I suppose a few obvious examples of various degree would be: Bull fighting in Spain, the religious police in Saudi Arabia, the non democratic political system in North Korea, the age of consent in Senegal, the laws regarding homosexuality in Sudan, and the more extreme examples of Sharia law around the world.

And the way European women are allowed to be equal to men, and Europeans don't respect their Holy day, and people are allowed to drink alcohol, and hunting and coursing are permitted, and...so on.

Who would be the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Through whose eyes would these issues be explored? How detailed would you get? We (the rest of the world/ people who do not engage in these things) have not been able to get rid of slavery, female genital mutilation, genocide, terrorism, what would be the chances of telling people they cannot go to bullfights, or practise their religion as they wish?

It is not so long ago that divorce was not permitted in Ireland, we sorted it out for ourselves, but would we have accepted being told that we had to permit it?

OK there is an element of this from the European Court of Human Rights, so to some extent is it happening, but only within Europe. I think to a very large extent you have to allow peoples to work out their own salvation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strobe

looksee wrote: »

And the way European women are allowed to be equal to men, and Europeans don't respect their Holy day, and people are allowed to drink alcohol, and hunting and coursing are permitted, and...so on.

Well, yes exactly. I tried my best (with the culture A/B comment) to direct the question towards the second sentence of the title (maybe replacing "thier" and "do we" with "a" and " deos another"), would have helped but the quotation marks were there for a reason.

wonderfulname

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How do you propose to "help" them?

Well if you were to take the example of sharia law, there are already women within the Muslim community pushing against it, maybe our own modern feminists could get over the dilemma of who should unload the dishwasher and cop on that just because they are comfortable doesn't mean every woman in the world is.

These people claim to work for womens rights, so they bloody well should, this is what i meant by help.

strobe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not in this thread in anyway, but it was a shame it was locked (and how it was started) and if I think of a way of phrasing an original post (& thread title) to continue it along similar but more constructive lines in the politics forum I think it could be a really interesting discussion.

milehip1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But taking one to a male child's foreskin isn't?

strobe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about Looksee's example of hunting and coursing? Would other cultures or other people within this culture not claim such things have always been wrong and only recently people are realising it? As he asked who would be the arbiter? Some people view imprisoning, killing and eating animals to be outright evil, for example. They would consider the completion of what the Enlightenment set out to do to be the suspension of that practice/tradition. Where is the line drawn and who could possibly draw it?

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It was fun while it lasted.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would you include wage slavery in LDCs? For example, USA exporting labour to LDCs (or the sweat shops found in PRC), to increase profits for USA investors? Reminds me of an old American song by Tennessee Ernie Ford:

"You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store"

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How would you "be educating" them?

Nick Dolan

I dont think Population A has a right to judge Populations B customs. However I do think that if, say, Population A feels strongly enough about it and invades Population B and enforces Culture A, well tough for Population B.

So for instance US invading Iraq to "help" ordinary decent Iraq people was a load of nonsence,but I felt they won power in an armed conflict and they can go about imposing whatever culture they want.

Black Swan

wonderfulname wrote: »

These people claim to work for womens rights, so they bloody well should, this is what i meant by help.

Oh... you mean the women (and men actively interested) that currently champion women's rights should "help?" But how will they "help" women living in another country like Saudi Arabia, if those interested in "helping" live in Ireland? Still not certain what you mean by "help?"

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wonderfulname

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Oh... you mean the women (and men actively interested) that currently champion women's rights should "help?" But how will they "help" women living in another country like Saudi Arabia, if those interested in "helping" live in Ireland? Still not certain what you mean by "help?"

Well that was only one example, you could say the same with rights activists for any group in any liberal environment, they rabbit on about ridiculous things such as the dishwasher when their initial goals still technically haven't been completed.

Well there are two ways really in my mind, stop pretending the issues don't exist as to increase awareness, and educate the pioneers of these new activists in how it was done in their day.

I really just think that the priority's of groups such as modern womens rights movements in the western world are quite skewed, and i have a great hatred for them, hence the ranting.

amacachi

I have the right to say whether I think something is right or wrong always, however that doesn't mean I have the right to stop someone in another country from doing what's accepted there. Western interfering has led to horrific things, leave them alone and if it gets worse they've no-one to blame but themselves.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We just gave them better weapons to kill each other with. To me there's been little benefit for the vast majority of people in colonised countries, though all this may be for another thread. As far as I'm concerned though countries should keep out of other country's business as much as is possible.

strobe

amacachi wrote: »

I have the right to say whether I think something is right or wrong always, however that doesn't mean I have the right to stop someone in another country from doing what's accepted there. Western interfering has led to horrific things, leave them alone and if it gets worse they've no-one to blame but themselves.

But what if you remove the concept of "another country" and apply it to, for instance "another family"? Essentially it is all people behaving in a certain way to other people, minus the likely geographical distances. If you are living next door to a family and while walking by their house one day you see the father viciously beating the mother, through the front room window....Do you only have the right to think he shouldn't do it, and perhaps tell him so? Or do you decide it is just wrong and intercede, weather that be by running in and stopping him from beating her yourself or by calling the police and having them do it?

Either way you have gone beyond just thinking something is wrong and entered the area of instilling apon yourself the right to stop it. Is your only sense of what is your right over-riden by what is legal or not, where ever it is legal or not, at that particular time?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red Hand

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who is "we"? And do "we" really "give" them these things?

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are suggesting that exporting labour to LCDs to increase profits by American investors is a good thing, even if the wage and work environment conditions fall well below Western standards? How does this exploitation of the vast differences in wage and working conditions speak to the thread OP in spirit; i.e., their cultural practices are different from ours, and we find some wrong, or unjust, or inhumane, and should change, but it's OK for us to exploit the wage and working condition differences today so that we can live by a vastly higher standard of living?

donegalfella wrote: »

If you look at the anti-sweatshop campaigns, you'll find that many are funded by Western labor unions, which have a vested interest in keeping jobs under union control in the United States.

Fair enough, but the same could be said about the special interest lobbies that support the export of labour by the for-profit sector?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

But what if you remove the concept of "another country" and apply it to, for instance "another family"? Essentially it is all people behaving in a certain way to other people, minus the likely geographical distances. If you are living next door to a family and while walking by their house one day you see the father viciously beating the mother, through the front room window....Do you only have the right to think he shouldn't do it, and perhaps tell him so? Or do you decide it is just wrong and intercede, weather that be by running in and stopping him from beating her yourself or by calling the police and having them do it?

Either way you have gone beyond thinking something is wrong and entered the area of instilling apon yourself the right to stop it. Is your only sense of what is your right over-riden by what is legal or not, where ever it is legal or not, at that particular time?

Again, we as a country and culture (hopefully) would mostly intercede there, within laws that we have agreed upon.
I'm not saying a law is my only source of morals, my experience and environment are, and laws are a part of that.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How many have access to most of those things? The "manufacturing techniques" we gave them were often techniques that we didn't like to have in the west. The oil companies have been particularly disgraceful in areas in Africe.
Is your last sentence a question? I'm not determined to believe anything, my opinions change often. Basically I think they should have been left alone, and "civilised", for want of a better word, themselves over time, as they saw what was being achieved elsewhere and wanted it. Perhaps that would have caused less or slower development in white areas but it's better than what did happen. Foisting foreign morals and values on a country not ready for them rarely seems to work out very well.

amacachi

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Who is "we"? And do "we" really "give" them these things?

"We" is the white man, and no "we" didn't just give them the weapons, we got a ****load back in trade.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

You are suggesting that exporting labour to LCDs to increase profits by American investors is a good thing, even if the wage and work environment conditions fall well below Western standards? How does this exploitation of the vast differences in wage and working conditions speak to the thread OP in spirit; i.e., their cultural practices are different from ours, and we find some wrong, or unjust, or inhumane, and should change, but it's OK for us to exploit the wage and working condition differences today so that we can live by a vastly higher standard of living?

Fair enough, but the same could be said about the special interest lobbies that support the export of labour by the for-profit sector?

If people are happy or as happens actually compete for work somewhere then I don't see a problem tbh. Once again if they're left alone they will get to our current level themselves as their economy continues to grow, whereas unions in the West want improved conditions immediately to secure their own and their country's current jobs. EDIT: As well as this, sending more jobs to LCDs will speed up their economic development, not just their economic growth.

strobe

Nick Dolan wrote: »

I dont think Population A has a right to judge Populations B customs. However I do think that if, say, Population A feels strongly enough about it and invades Population B and enforces Culture A, well tough for Population B.

So for instance US invading Iraq to "help" ordinary decent Iraq people was a load of nonsence,but I felt they won power in an armed conflict and they can go about imposing whatever culture they want.

(I'm going to totally Godwin {god I hate the concept of not being allowed to introduce one of the most important events of the 20th century, of any century, without someone feeling the need to "call you on it" that exists online now} my own thread but it has to be done)

So if Population A(Nazi Germany) feels strongly enough about Jews being the bane of humanity and invades Population B (the rest of Europe){Germany included} and starts killing all the Jews(aswell as others), well, tough for Population B? Whoever is the best at forcing their will on others.....Well, fair play?

wonderfulname

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think its also important to note that in a modern context, there is no country that doesn't have some sector of their society where the physical stuff isn't at least catching up on our own, the "better weapons" thing isn't the issue nowadays its how the societies operate in these countries, and if it can be deemed to be infringing on anyones human rights, these rights are generally taken from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, so the standard has been set, and many countries don't come close.

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

(I'm going to totally Godwin {god I hate the concept of not being allowed to introduce one of the most important events of the 20th century, of any century, without someone feeling the need to "call you on it" that exists online now} my own thread but it has to be done)

So if Population A(Nazi Germany) feels strongly enough about Jews being the bane of humanity and invades Population B (the rest of Europe){Germany included} and starts killing all the Jews(aswell as others), well, tough for Population B? Whoever is the best at forcing their will on others.....Well, fair play?

That wasn't directed at me, but I said "as much as possible", the slaughter of people falls outside of that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strobe

amacachi wrote: »

Again, we as a country and culture (hopefully) would mostly intercede there, within laws that we have agreed upon.
I'm not saying a law is my only source of morals, my experience and environment are, and laws are a part of that.

But man, now put yourself in the shoes of a (easiest example) radical distorted-Muslim Iman that says women should be covered head to toe at all times and no one should drink alcohol and homosexuals should be executed.....

Do you believe they and thier culture should mostly intercede against those things, within the laws they have agreed upon. They could say the law isn't their only source of morals, their experience and their environment are, the laws are a part of that. Is it ok when they stone a girl to death because she had sex out of wedlock? Would they think it is ok if a girl here had sex out of wedlock. What if you live on the border, directly, ten feet away from where the girl is being stoned to death in their culture? Should we intercede then? What if it is an inch from that political border? Does one inch decide what should be stopped and what shouldn't? That brings it right back to does it just come down to what is legal, where it is legal, if it is legal at that time.


Edit: You typed the below as I was typing the above.

amacachi wrote: »

That wasn't directed at me, but I said "as much as possible", the slaughter of people falls outside of that.

So you draw the line at the murder of others but nowhere before? What about a culture torturing a girl an inch inside their own border for the same crime?

If you intercede in that instance, are they not justified in interceding in the case of someone standing an inch inside our border saying "Mohammed is an asshole", (sincere apologies to any Muslims reading the thread, this whole "crazy (non)Muslim thing is just the easiest example that is coming to mind right now. I will switch analogies for any posts after this) a crime they would view as far worse than them "justifiably" torturing the girl?

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

But man, now put yourself in the shoes of a (easiest example) radical distorted-Muslim Iman that says women should be covered head to toe at all times and no one should drink alcohol and homosexuals should be executed.....

Do you believe they and thier culture should mostly intercede against those things, within the laws they have agreed upon. They could say the law isn't their only source of morals, their experience and their environment are, the laws are a part of that. Is it ok when they stone a girl to death because she had sex out of wedlock? Would they think it is ok if a girl here had sex out of wedlock. What if you live on the border, directly, ten feet away from where the girl is being stoned to death in their culture? Should we intercede then? What if it is an inch from that political border? Does one inch decide what should be stopped and what shouldn't? That brings it right back to does it just come down to what is legal, where it is legal, if it is legal at that time.

I don't think I'd fit into his shoes. :pac:
It's a grey area tbh, since it does get near the slaughter of people again. I will condemn it, but where to draw a line as to when to intercede and in what way and what means to use is hard to know. Where should self-determination end?

Oh_Noes

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Don't you see that every argument you're making here is completely subjective? You're trying to argue your points from a subjective standpoint. Which makes them completely irrelevant in this discussion. Whether you feel something is right or wrong is completely subjective because you also belong to an established culture.

Arguing that medicine/science has proved things is completely pointless, because western medicine is as culturally rooted as anything else. Arguing that something is scientifically proven/disproven is a tradition is western science.

Subjectivity/objectivity is the key to this discussion. The real question is whether you should impose your traditions on others.

Black Swan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We have child labour laws so that our children are not exploited for corporate profits as they were in the past during the Western industrial revolution? Do you agree with these laws? Should other cultures/nations be held to the same standards, or should we allow for a double standard to exist, when comparing domestic child labour standards to those of the nations we export labour to increase profits?

I wonder if Nike would have continued to exploit (12 year old) child labour in Pakistan had the corporation not been caught and pictured in Life Magazine? I wonder how many other, less band name famous corporations still exploit child labour in LDCs to increase corporate profits today?

"Children are not only the easiest to intimidate, they're also the cheapest workers. Twelve-year-old Tariq, one of thousands employed in Pakistan's soccer ball industry, which produces five million balls a year for the U.S. market, stitches leather pieces in Mahotra. He earns 60 cents a ball, and it takes most of a day to make one."

Source: http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/nike/pakistan.html

Nick Dolan

strobe wrote: »

(I'm going to totally Godwin {god I hate the concept of not being allowed to introduce one of the most important events of the 20th century, of any century, without someone feeling the need to "call you on it" that exists online now} my own thread but it has to be done)

So if Population A(Nazi Germany) feels strongly enough about Jews being the bane of humanity and invades Population B (the rest of Europe){Germany included} and starts killing all the Jews(aswell as others), well, tough for Population B? Whoever is the best at forcing their will on others.....Well, fair play?

Indeed tough on Population B. And tough also on the nazi leaders, executed after the allies invaded. I think a better wording of where i was coming from was dont have the moral high ground regarding other peoples cultures. But i think winning a military victory over those peoples means you can exercise your own culture on them. Its not a nice prospect I realise but thats how its worked over the centuries. Regarding individuals going to other cultures to influence them , I dunno.For instance is someone who goes to Afganistan From Ireland to set up a girls school any different to a radical muslim coming to Ireland to stop us drinking?


By the way whats a godwin?

amacachi

Nick Dolan wrote: »

By the way whats a godwin?

Godwin's Law more or less states that as an online discussion grows in size the probability of a comparison being made to Nazis or the Holocaust approaches 1.

strobe

strobe wrote: »

Ok I was going to post this in After Hours....but I can imagine how that would play out (and I'm banned from there) so I think this would be the right place for the thread.

"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

I have heard people say this many times, in relation to all kinds of topics. I suppose a few obvious examples of various degree would be: Bull fighting in Spain, the religious police in Saudi Arabia, the non democratic political system in North Korea, the age of consent in Senegal, the laws regarding homosexuality in Sudan, and the more extreme examples of Sharia law around the world.

I was just curious on what other people felt about the opinion.

I think we have human rights, not only-some-people rights. Honestly, I think those basic rights should be universal.

I also think the problem with intervening in other cultures is that those cultures would probably not understand (as in, 'how dare they interfere') and resent the intervention. It wouldn't really change whatever custom. I think some interference against extreme acts maybe like trying to get FGM banned and stoning random girls banned, but education and discussion on the rest.
I don't know...

strobe

strobe wrote: »

Ok I was going to post this in After Hours....but I can imagine how that would play out (and I'm banned from there) so I think this would be the right place for the thread.

"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

I have heard people say this many times, in relation to all kinds of topics. I suppose a few obvious examples of various degree would be: Bull fighting in Spain, the religious police in Saudi Arabia, the non democratic political system in North Korea, the age of consent in Senegal, the laws regarding homosexuality in Sudan, and the more extreme examples of Sharia law around the world.

I was just curious on what other people felt about the opinion.

Do you believe some things are just universaly wrong and culture or autonomy are no excuse? Do you believe each culture or society should be free to exist however they do and people outside of that culture should not get involved? Do you think other cultures have a right or obligation to intercede in certain situations, and if so which, what are the conditions? Who decides and how is the decision of one culture over another quantified as justifiable? Where is the line drawn and can any one culture or individual objectively draw that line with any authority? If you believe it is justifiable for culture A to intercede would it not therefore to be just as justifiable for the opposing culture B to intercede in the opposite direction over the same difference?

I have my own opinions but if it's allowed I'd prefer to reserve them for a few posts to avoid influencing the initial response of others. I will give my own opinion though.

I believe that

no country is perfect, and people tend to look & complain/criticise other cultures/countries than deal with their own problems. Its easier than having to actually do something.

I believe that other countries have the right to live as they

choose to live. If they no longer want to live that way or allow such practices to exist, then they will make the steps towards change. These steps don't have to be patterned the same way as previous countries, and just because we made the same changes 30 years ago, doesn't make us an authority on how to do it.

I believe that there is a lot of misinformation spread around by those that are "for" and those that are "against" and lastly those that "really don't have a clue". After living in many countries in Europe, & Asia I'm still amazed at the amount of misinformation we receive on a daily basis about other countries and their cultural history.

I believe that people tend to pass judgments on other cultures they have absolutely no understanding of. They believe their own culture is superior in some manner and that gives them license to pass sentence. That regardless of the subject matter, they are right and the target culture is wrong.

I believe in two circumstances. When a cultural practice/system is being performed in its originating country/people.... and when the same cultural practice/system is migrated to a vastly different country with its own culture/system. See my posts about face coverings and multiculturalism.

--- In my own country, I stick to the Law, and upholding the spirit of the law, both from a literal sense, and also from a moral/cultural perspective. When I'm in other countries I tend to do the same. It is not my place to screw with their culture. God knows, I have enough problems with western culture systems to prevent any sense of superiority.

And finally.

I believe that International Law is a lovely idea but not terribly practical or fair. Too many times its applied only to the weak while the strong (politically or military) are ignored. Don't get me wrong, I'm against genocide or massacres, and believe that the Int'l community should intercede, but we should never believe that this is about International Law.. its about stability, and the strong towering over the rest. Too many times genocides have continued for years if not decades before any real international intervention for me to believe in any high moral guide for the participants (big or small).

International Law is a form of control. While there are many good laws (from my perspective on human rights and genocide) contained within, it is still something applied to every country without asking their consent. And without being particularly enforced at home.

smiles302

Just a thought, how many people would happily make alcohol and any other drugs banned under the Islam tradition, illegal World-Wide if it was considered an international compromise if they would accept stoning anybody to also be illegal?

I don't see it happening in reality, but it does seem very controlling to suggest they change the things we don't like, if we aren't willing to change the things they really don't like about our culture.

AudreyHepburn

strobe wrote: »

Ok I was going to post this in After Hours....but I can imagine how that would play out (and I'm banned from there) so I think this would be the right place for the thread.

"It is their culture. What right do we have to say it is right or wrong?"

I have heard people say this many times, in relation to all kinds of topics. I suppose a few obvious examples of various degree would be: Bull fighting in Spain, the religious police in Saudi Arabia, the non democratic political system in North Korea, the age of consent in Senegal, the laws regarding homosexuality in Sudan, and the more extreme examples of Sharia law around the world.

I was just curious on what other people felt about the opinion.

Do you believe some things are just universaly wrong and culture or autonomy are no excuse? Do you believe each culture or society should be free to exist however they do and people outside of that culture should not get involved? Do you think other cultures have a right or obligation to intercede in certain situations, and if so which, what are the conditions? Who decides and how is the decision of one culture over another quantified as justifiable? Where is the line drawn and can any one culture or individual objectively draw that line with any authority? If you believe it is justifiable for culture A to intercede would it not therefore to be just as justifiable for the opposing culture B to intercede in the opposite direction over the same difference?

I believe that all cultures and belief systems should be allowed to exist and that no-one has any right to tell another person that what they believe is wrong.

Where I see an exception to this is where these beliefs and ideals of culture cause harm to people.

Take for example Female Genital Mutilation in parts of Africa. While this is on the one hand a Cultural practice to me it is nothing more that cruelty to children and young women. It can all sorts of problems at the time, such as severe infection and throughout life e.g. during childbirth assuming you actually survive it. Not mention it is extremely painful.

Or the ways in which many Muslim countries treat their women, robbing them of many of their rights as people.

Practices like these are fundementally wrong and I believe we have a right to object and try to put a stop to them.

irishconvert

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ha! Only if you have a memory which goes back 100 years. Clean water! Muslim Arabs has all of that in the 8th century while we were still of the opinion that it was weird to have a bath more than once a year. So many mathematical, medical and scientific discoveries came from the Arab Muslims. Evey heard of algebra, or the decimal point? All discoveries by Muslims.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Truley

The general consenses from this thread seems to be that 'primitive' agrarian societies with a tribal structure = bad. Where by our 'modern' and urbanised social structure is better and something that should be emulated. Keeping in mind that nuclear family structures are a relatively new idea, and are by no means the norm on a global level. In fact the idea has failed miserably if you ask me.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Define 'better' education? What are better farming and manufacturing techniques? Do you mean large scale commercial production? Cleaner water, now that makes me laugh. Only as recent as forty years ago did we adopt a pluming and sanatisation system even close to what the middle east had in the eight century.

AudreyHepburn

milehip1 wrote: »

But taking one to a male child's foreskin isn't?

Not even close!

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

Male circumcision is done generally for medical reasons and within a hospital environment.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

FGM is done for no other reason than that that part of a woman's body is seen as unclean and evil. It has no medical benefits whatsoever.

It is extremely painful and causes all sorts of complications at the time and later in life such as infection, problems with childbirth and problems during intercourse. Not to mention the physcological problems.

You cannot compare one to the other.

Rev Hellfire

Its easy to get worked up about the rights of the poor people while at the same time forgetting that reason you have such a comfortable existence over here in the west is due to our willingness to exploit others.

Its unfortunate, but if you're pragmatic about it there's always winners and losers in life. Just be glad you're not them and get on with your life.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AudreyHepburn

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Take for example Female Genital Mutilation in parts of Africa. While this is on the one hand a Cultural practice to me it is nothing more that cruelty to children and young women. It can all sorts of problems at the time, such as severe infection and throughout life e.g. during childbirth assuming you actually survive it. Not mention it is extremely painful.

Or the ways in which many Muslim countries treat their women, robbing them of many of their rights as people.

Practices like these are fundementally wrong and I believe we have a right to object and try to put a stop to them.

Whereas I believe that we should provide support, education and such to help them change should they wish it. Your attitude stinks of the Missionaries that went into Africa and other areas, enforcing their belief systems, and ultimately causing more pain than ever before.

I have no problem with objecting to such practices. I do so myself. But ultimately change only truly occurs when the people themselves want to change. Otherwise it just goes underground with even less regard to hygiene, sensibilities, freedoms etc. The culture of most countries which have practices which are opposite to our own, have some sort of protection or compensation involved somewhere along the line. Jumping in, tearing their system apart does nothing to stop the belief system that supports the practices, and just removes the support inherent in the cultures.

All cultures evolve over time, and while they do so too slowly for many people, they don't stay stagnant for the most part. The Muslim culture is changing, and will eventually get to another stage of development. Jumping in and forcing change is only going to create more support for hard-line traditionalist beliefs. Just as jumping in Africa regarding the female genitalia mutilation will just force it further underground with even worse consequences for the women involved.

Give people and their cultures time to change for themselves. Its not as if the west with its mad rush for change has improved immeasurably. We're still juggling issues like crazy. For most of the changes we've established there have been harsh consequences that are harder to fix than the original problems.

Before I lived in China, I heard hundreds of criticisms about how the government rules supreme, how the people are treated harshly, how women are second class citizens, etc etc etc. And yet when I lived there I was struck by how happy most people are. The sense of community which has been lost in Ireland. Sure, life is hard, but they make a life for themselves, and still have an enormous sense of pride in themselves/their country/and their culture. (Yes, Generalizations included) Yes, there were things that had a pinch of truth from the criticisms I'd heard, and yet it was never the whole story. And China is changing. Rapidly in some areas, and rather slowly in others. I'd prefer that they make their changes in a manner that suits themselves, and helps to maintain the bonuses of their society rather than rushing crazily into the "modern" age.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't really get why we have to assign any one discovery to one nation/people. Who discovered the wheel? Plenty of nations at different stages and many in complete isolation to the others developed such technological advances.

Also considering the amount of trade, and technology seized through warfare it would be extremely difficult to truly say who discovered what. Its just the modern penchant to assign responsibility or recognition to everything. To label everything. :rolleyes:

jackinyogrill

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Male circumcision is done generally for medical reasons and within a hospital environment.

After reading through the links you supplied, I remain unconvinced that male circumcision isn't elective; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a perfectly valid argument in this case, despite what that surgeon says. Worrying about medical problems that might occur falls under the clinical definition of anxiety, and I think it's highly inappropriate to perform unnecessary surgical procedures on a child in order to make the parents feel more at ease.

Of course, that does not detract from your point at all - there is no comparison at all between male circumcision and FGM, which is demonstrably more traumatising; has much more damaging long-term consequences; and has absolutely no medical (or moral, or logical) justification.

metrovelvet

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Male circumcision is done generally for medical reasons and within a hospital environment.

.

In the US it is standard practise for all newborn boys to be circumsized. You have to make a specific request for the infant NOT to be. Im sure they have some "medical" reason why they do it, but it smacks of neo victorianism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Pittens

and if it can be deemed to be infringing on anyones human rights, these rights are generally taken from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, so the standard has been set, and many countries don't come close.

The cultural relativists on this thread should demand come clean on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Is that a Western Influenced document, or not?

Who discovered the wheel? Plenty of nations at different stages and many in complete isolation to the others developed such technological advances.

In some cases, yes, in other cases no. The claim that Arabs invented Algebra is symptomatic of how badly educated most people are. The guy who gave his name to Algebra was sriting a synopsis of previous work in the area, which was influenced by Greek and Romans for centuries. To not know this is to not know the Roman Empire, or to not ever do mathematics ( which would name Greeks like Euclid and Archimedies). It's absurd.

I knew this stuff when I was 12 in my dilapidated school in Tipperary.