"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?