How much do we respect a culture if it demeans others

steddyeddy

A member of our project team is from Sri Lanka and although he's a lovely guy he still puts a lot of faith in his country's caste system. He's a scientist and frankly I don't think he should believe in such nonsense. Especially if that belief is about perceived cultures.

A girl in the institute here is from Saudia Arabia and seems to think the segregation of women is justified based on an old book.

Now I'll be honest I think segregation and discrimination and BS and should be tackled in polite society. My colleagues and I had a debate on whether it's right to challenge a person's whole culture. I think it's right to do so if that aspect of their culture is based on hate or denigration. In other words I don't think culture should get a free pass. The Orange Order spread bigotry in northern Ireland and used the word culture as a some sort of defence. We shouldn't be afraid of insulting someone's culture if it means pointing out wrongdoing.

I don't think we should automatically challenge people on aspects of their culture. In fact I think that sort of behaviour belongs in the "warning signs someone's a tosser" thread.

The Sri Lankan dude moved to North India when he was a kid and during lab time he was talking about the caste system in a manner which led me to think he was looking for someone to challenge it. He said his father was a wealthy man (Indian) who used to walk on his servants (lower caste) in order to avoid walking on an animal that was on the floor (he was an animal lover apparently). The Sri Lankan dude when challenged was saying the caste system is part of his culture and it's not a matter of right or wrong just a different culture.

So basically this is where I was going when I started the thread. I don't want to call people out on things because they are from a different culture. I'm wondering to we have a right to criticise that culture if it has beliefs that demean another group of people or does it get a free pass because it is someone's culture?

Joxer_Daly

Where is this? If it's in Ireland/Europe then they can **** off. If it's outside of Europe/the west then you probably just have to suck it up. When in Rome and all that.

steddyeddy

Joxer_Daly wrote: »

Where is this? If it's in Ireland/Europe then they can **** off. If it's outside of Europe/the west then you probably just have to suck it up. When in Rome and all that.

I'm based in the UK right now.

MarkR

I'd choose yakult over actimel, it just looks more efficient.

kneemos

MarkR wrote: »

I'd choose yakult over actimel, it just looks more efficient.

yakult.

biko

I think it's right to challenge their culture if it clashes with yours. They sure as hell would do it if you were in their country.

If no-one ever challenged things, how would they change (hopefully improve)?

Fire away and let the PC brigade wring their hands in anxiousness.

Joxer_Daly

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm based in the UK right now.

In that case I'd keep shtum.

looksee

Right on! And I know someone who believes that its ok to discriminate against children getting an education because they are not signed on to the majority religion. And a woman who believes that she should not be allowed to have any authority in her religion, because that is a man's role. I also know someone who thinks that religious beliefs should dictate decisions in medicine and politics. Its all a disgrace!!!

thattequilagirl

I think you can challenge aspects of a culture that don't fit with modern Western life without challenging the culture as a whole e.g. I don't care what religion you are you have no right to gay bash, but if you want to pray 5 times a day or say the Angelus at 6 o clock I don't really care as long as it doesn't impact me.

steddyeddy

thattequilagirl wrote: »

I think you can challenge aspects of a culture that don't fit with modern Western life without challenging the culture as a whole e.g. I don't care what religion you are you have no right to gay bash, but if you want to pray 5 times a day or say the Angelus at 6 o clock I don't really care as long as it doesn't impact me.

Well in the case of the caste system guy it did effect our team.

gandalf

With the caste system guy start treating him differently. If he complains then just say you're practising what he is preaching, same for the Saudi women. 99 times out of a 100 these people change their spots when they aren't top of the pile any longer.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

steddyeddy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Once again dude you are displaying an inability to read posts.

Pawwed Rig

I don't see any reason to respect anyones culture or religion where it does not equally respect each member of that culture or religion.
This essentially rules out a large proportion of the world.

steddyeddy

Just to reiterate my the sentiment of my title guys I'm only wondering how much you have to respect beliefs that denigrate others e.g those that think gay people are evil or that women are lesser. Not how much should we randomly destroy other cultural beliefs.

AtomicHorror

steddyeddy wrote: »

We shouldn't be afraid of insulting someone's culture if it means pointing out wrongdoing.

I would add the caveat that we shouldn't be afraid if we can see that the challenge/insult has the desired effect (diminishing the undesirable cultural trait). In some cases this approach may well work, but in others it may lead to a defensive or perhaps even more extreme stance. A lot of cultures- particularly religious ones- seem to thrive off the idea of their being under attack.

I'm not saying the Dawkins-style confrontation and/or ridicule can't work, but it's evidently not a magic bullet.

In my view, the responsibility of a liberal culture is to create an environment which unambiguously demonstrates to members of another culture that 1) our way is materially better, 2) your can join our culture and be treated the same as we are, and 3) if you join our culture we will protect you from reprisals from your previous culture.

I think we're completely failing on points 2 and 3, and sometimes on point 1 as well.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

A girl in the institute here is from Saudia Arabia and seems to think the segregation of women is justified based on an old book.

As Yes Minister put it:
Civil Servant - "They stone women who commit adultery in West Yemen"
Sir Humpbrey - "Whereas our women commit adultery when they are stoned"

If it's their religion not a whole lot you can do about it, we used to do stupid things when Catholicism had a grip of this country, eat fish on Friday to doing the odd Jewish pogrom.

Speedwell

It is unfortunately typical of a member of an oppressive system who benefits or has benefited from that system to defend it, because it is part of their identity and "made them who they are today". It is equally unfortunate and equally typical for a member of an oppressive system who has been the victim of oppression to defend it, and for exactly the same reasons.

Bankers defend the excesses of capitalism because they benefit, of course, but members of the Tea Party in the US defend it because they equate the capability of "rising to the top" as a moral virtue and aspire to become one of the oppressors. There's a quip going around to the effect that Americans are all "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", and as an American, I can tell you this is nothing but the god-honest truth. When I was poor, I blamed myself, not the oppressive system.

You see this in religion as well, as other posters have pointed out. When things are going well with you, you are enjoying the favor of God because you are good. But when things are going badly with you, you are enduring the wrath of God because you are bad. Nobody gets around to blaming God for being unfair.

From an inside viewpoint, God is never unfair, and "the system" is always perfect, and "the man" is always right. Your friend is going to have to learn to apply his scientific critical thinking to the rest of his worldview. It is all right to point out where he is applying emotional and uncritical reasoning, I think, but not to the level of offense or harassment (and only he can determine that level). In general, injustice should never go unchallenged, because not challenging it is usually a sign of tacit approval. But a cool, well-spoken word can have a lot of impact; being emotional about the subject (including being disgusted or offended) can really turn him off.

suicide_circus

Which is the more righteous side of the politically correct coin?

a. to accept and celebrate cultural and religious differences even when they include inequality, segregation and bigotry?

b. to challenge inequality, segregation and bigotry even when they they are packaged in the guise of culture and religion?

Speedwell

suicide_circus wrote: »

Which is the more righteous side of the politically correct coin?

a. to accept and celebrate cultural and religious differences even when they include inequality, segregation and bigotry?

b. to challenge inequality, segregation and bigotry even when they they are packaged in the guise of culture and religion?

I take it that's a rhetorical question? I think the focus of the discussion at the moment is not whether, but how, to challenge injustice, how to understand its source and psychology, and what methods might be most effective.

People are not free to believe whatever they want. I am not free to believe that green tea and garlic are going to cure my child's meningitis. I am not free to believe that dropped items fall up. People are not in general free to believe that it is right to cause harm to other people.

cowboyBuilder

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm based in the UK right now.

ah well , the UK ... biggest Nazi police state of all .

How anyone can live under that regime is beyond me ... good luck..

Speedwell

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

ah well , the UK ... biggest Nazi police state of all .

How anyone can live under that regime is beyond me ... good luck..

Good Godwin, Batman.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

suicide_circus

Speedwell wrote: »

I am not free to believe that dropped items fall up.

Why not?

Speedwell

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why not?

Try it out and see how you fare

valoren

The key thing is to affirm your own beliefs in an assertive way and not being an asshole about it.
You would make the point that you yourself don't believe in a "Them and Us" social system based on ethnicity. You are happy to live as you are.

In this case, you might ask why he believes in the caste system as you are unfamiliar with it yourself. You wouldn't go around ridiculing the person as when you challenge beliefs aggressively you only wind up reaffirming that person's belief.

It's like saying to a deeply religious person that their religion is a load of BS. You would just reaffirm their own faith, you are the devil, you are tempting them, they must keep their faith strong etc etc.

If a culture is brazenly flaunted in an opposing culture, then you run the risk of the cry bully.
Where the very act of questioning is automatically deemed as an attack on them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

A member of our project team is from Sri Lanka and although he's a lovely guy he still puts a lot of faith in his country's caste system. He's a scientist and frankly I don't think he should believe in such nonsense. Especially if that belief is about perceived cultures.

A girl in the institute here is from Saudia Arabia and seems to think the segregation of women is justified based on an old book.

Now I'll be honest I think segregation and discrimination and BS and should be tackled in polite society. My colleagues and I had a debate on whether it's right to challenge a person's whole culture. I think it's right to do so if that aspect of their culture is based on hate or denigration. In other words I don't think culture should get a free pass. The Orange Order spread bigotry in northern Ireland and used the word culture as a some sort of defence. We shouldn't be afraid of insulting someone's culture if it means pointing out wrongdoing.

I don't see what insulting people's cultural background ever achieves if your aim is to have them question their cultural values. The examples you give above are fairly benign, and I personally wouldn't be getting any way bent out of shape about them.

I prefer to lead by example, so if you want people to learn what it is not to be ignorant, show them then what it is not to be ignorant, and hope that they'll learn from your example, while at the same time showing them that you're willing and open to learning more about their culture and values.

MRnotlob606

My favourite teddy bear as a child was stuffed dinosaur.It was with me in my imaginations

MRnotlob606

My father played tennis with Adolf Eichman

jackofalltrades

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well in the case of the caste system guy it did effect our team.

Do you mind me asking how?

suicide_circus

Let's call a spade a spade here. Much of this comes down to faith - the belief in the unproven and unknowable. Where faith manifests itself in the public sphere is where friction occurs: teaching intelligent design in schools, refusing to bake a gay cake, denying your child a blood transfusion etc.

As a very young religion, Scientology is conspicuous as an obvious and cynical fraud and is thus rightfully pilloried and admonished. Other more established religions have the weight and gravitas which only come with age and yet are no less unlikely, contradictory and cynical in their quest for power and control than Scientology.

Faith is not a virtue. Would we respect and accept a persons belief in any number of bizarre and counterintuitive rules were they not accompanied by a largely disproven and incoherent back story?

Freedom isn't free. It is hard faught and it has taken us aeons to drag ourselves to a place where our thoughts and actions need no longer be dictated by primal fears, smoke and mirrors and dubious texts promoted by sinister ideologues.

This is not a battle that will be won by the sword or the statute book. It will be won by example. By living a secular life marked by fairness, kindness and evidence based prudence.

biko

looksee wrote: »

Right on! And I know someone who believes that its ok to discriminate against children getting an education because they are not signed on to the majority religion. And a woman who believes that she should not be allowed to have any authority in her religion, because that is a man's role. I also know someone who thinks that religious beliefs should dictate decisions in medicine and politics. Its all a disgrace!!!

Are you talking about Mormons, Jews, Christians, Muslims or what?

Religion does not equal culture.

Jester252

Dose their culture affect you?

Drop it and don't create hostility in the team.

If you can't drop it due to personal morally. Just realize the damage that you'll cause to professional and personal relationships.
Also be aware that you will push away other people as no one wants to deal with your issues.

Speedwell

Jester252 wrote: »

Dose their culture affect you?

Drop it and don't create hostility in the team.

If you can't drop it due to personal morally. Just realize the damage that you'll cause to professional and personal relationships.
Also be aware that you will push away other people as no one wants to deal with your issues.

In the massive multinational oil resources group where I worked in IT (headquartered in the US), HR dictated equal treatment and it didn't matter what the hell culture you came from. When I was a trainer in Abu Dhabi, they fired a guy on the spot because he refused to attend a training class taught by a woman. Corporate culture > individual culture. If someone's not a team player and can't adhere to team values within a corporate values setting, or creates a hostile work environment through making his outdated, oppressive views uncomfortably obvious to the point where they clearly detract from the ability of the team to work together as professionals, he needs to find a different venue for his opinions. And any responsible company will be glad to facilitate that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jester252

Speedwell wrote: »

In the massive multinational oil resources group where I worked in IT (headquartered in the US), HR dictated equal treatment and it didn't matter what the hell culture you came from. When I was a trainer in Abu Dhabi, they fired a guy on the spot because he refused to attend a training class taught by a woman. Corporate culture > individual culture. If someone's not a team player and can't adhere to team values within a corporate values setting, or creates a hostile work environment through making his outdated, oppressive views uncomfortably obvious to the point where they clearly detract from the ability of the team to work together as professionals, he needs to find a different venue for his opinions. And any responsible company will be glad to facilitate that.

Company culture beats all. In the example you gave he created a hostile enviroment.

However the OP/company isn't affect by their culture, according to the opening post. OP has an issue with their culture on a personal level. If he challenge them, he is creating a hostile work enviroment.

It just something to keep in mind.

Wibbs

looksee wrote: »

Right on! And I know someone who believes that its ok to discriminate against children getting an education because they are not signed on to the majority religion. And a woman who believes that she should not be allowed to have any authority in her religion, because that is a man's role. I also know someone who thinks that religious beliefs should dictate decisions in medicine and politics. Its all a disgrace!!!

Wondered how long it would take before good oul Catholic Ireland and the lingering self hate from same would surface. It may just have escaped your attention that Ireland and her culture have made huge strides in the last generation away from that and Ireland is a very different place today compared with the Ireland of yesterday. Hell it's different than it was in the 80's.

Sure we most certainly have some ways to go, but we're going, but don't let that get in the way of the self hate and BS cultural relevance stuff that's parroted way too often. Though it really is getting damned tiresome at this stage.

One eyed Jack

Speedwell wrote: »

In the massive multinational oil resources group where I worked in IT (headquartered in the US), HR dictated equal treatment and it didn't matter what the hell culture you came from. When I was a trainer in Abu Dhabi, they fired a guy on the spot because he refused to attend a training class taught by a woman. Corporate culture > individual culture. If someone's not a team player and can't adhere to team values within a corporate values setting, or creates a hostile work environment through making his outdated, oppressive views uncomfortably obvious to the point where they clearly detract from the ability of the team to work together as professionals, he needs to find a different venue for his opinions. And any responsible company will be glad to facilitate that.

Wouldn't the same then go for any individual who assumed they had a right to enforce their cultural values on someone else who did not share their cultural values? I'm pretty sure the corporate culture would see that didn't happen either.

So in eddy's case above, he would need to go through the proper channels if he cannot work with someone on his team, rather than trying to blame them for his issues with them.

Watched a great film on the whole idea of culture clash last night, don't know how many here have seen it but I always watch it when it's on:

Crash is a 2004 ensemble drama film co-written, produced, and directed by Paul Haggis. The film is about racial and social tensions in Los Angeles, California. A self-described "passion piece" for Haggis, Crash was inspired by a real-life incident, in which his Porsche was carjacked outside a video store on Wilshire Boulevard in 1991.

Several characters' stories interweave during two days in Los Angeles: a black detective estranged from his mother; his criminal younger brother and gang associate; the white district attorney and his irritated, pampered wife; a racist white police officer who disgusts his more idealistic younger partner; an African American Hollywood director and his wife who must deal with the officer; a Persian-immigrant father who is wary of others; and a hard-working Hispanic family man, a locksmith. The film differs from many other films about racism in its rather impartial approach to the issue. Rather than separating the characters into victims and offenders, victims of racism are often shown to be prejudiced themselves in different contexts and situations. Also, racist remarks and actions are often shown to stem from ignorance and misconception rather than a malicious personality.

Crash (2004 film)


Perhaps eddy could claim he has uncontrollable flatulence

The next day, at the Los Angeles Police Department station, Hansen talks to his superior, Lt. Dixon (Keith David), about switching partners. Dixon, a black man, claims that Hansen's charge of Ryan as a racist could cost both Hansen and Dixon their jobs. Dixon suggests a transfer to a one-man car and mockingly tells Hansen that he should justify it by claiming to have uncontrollable flatulence.

wokingvoter

suicide_circus wrote: »

Why not?

I can believe that the moon is made of cream cheese and that unicorns charge across the plains of Africa if I like.
The fact that its not true doesn't make a jot of difference.
I believe that its true and that everybody else is completely mistaken.
So what?

endacl

Got to respect something something something.

looksee

Wibbs wrote: »

Wondered how long it would take before good oul Catholic Ireland and the lingering self hate from same would surface. It may just have escaped your attention that Ireland and her culture have made huge strides in the last generation away from that and Ireland is a very different place today compared with the Ireland of yesterday. Hell it's different than it was in the 80's.

Sure we most certainly have some ways to go, but we're going, but don't let that get in the way of the self hate and BS cultural relevance stuff that's parroted way too often. Though it really is getting damned tiresome at this stage.

First, it is not self hate because I am neither Irish nor Catholic, though I have lived the greater part of my life here and raised a Catholic family.

Second, I was making the point that it is possible to extrapolate a supposed entire culture from single examples - which is what the OP was doing, and which I was copying.

It would be more effective to point out the the op that not everyone from a caste-conscious country agrees with the caste system, and efforts have and are being made to eliminate it. Similarly it would be easy to find numerous women in the UK of originally Islamic background who do not agree with or wear the veil.

steddyeddy

People are certainly free to believe whatever but the converse is that people are free to challenge other people's beliefs.

K-9

Well yes eddy, but people who follow religions generally aren't open to challenge on it, especially in a workplace!

steddyeddy

K-9 wrote: »

Well yes eddy, but people who follow religions generally aren't open to challenge on it, especially in a workplace!

No but beliefs form part of religions. Some of those beliefs may be that homosexuality is wrong, darker skin castes are inferior or that certain genders are less. If those topics come up in conversation then they can be challenged IMO.

wokingvoter

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but beliefs form part of religions. Somewhere of those beliefs may be that homosexuality is wrong, darker skin castes are inferior or that certain genders are less. If those topics come up in conversation then they can be challenged IMO.

....and if these topics don't come up in conversation, or if there's a conversation involving these topics going on and a person of a particular belief or coming from a particular culture, doesn't want to join in or comment, then its not your job, or anybody else's, to extract an opinion from them, especially with a view to "correcting" their mindset.

jmayo

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just to reiterate my the sentiment of my title guys I'm only wondering how much you have to respect beliefs that denigrate others e.g those that think gay people are evil or that women are lesser. Not how much should we randomly destroy other cultural beliefs.

I have to wonder would you be asking this question if it was a white supremacist we were talking about ?

You do not have to respect their beliefs at all.

They have a right to have them, but that doesn't mean you have to respect them or their beliefs.

And if they try and foist them on others, then tell them to fook off back to where they came from because they are now in a secular enlightened Western society in the 21st century.

K-9 wrote: »

As Yes Minister put it:
Civil Servant - "They stone women who commit adultery in West Yemen"
Sir Humpbrey - "Whereas our women commit adultery when they are stoned"

If it's their religion not a whole lot you can do about it, we used to do stupid things when Catholicism had a grip of this country, eat fish on Friday to doing the odd Jewish pogrom.

Once again we have the whataboutery.

The key there is we used to.

Why does someone always harp back to what used to be in Europe (usually decades or more likely centuries ago) to excuse what is current in some parts of the world today ?

The catholic church hasn't had a grip in Ireland in about two decades and never had in the UK.
And AFAIK there was only ever one pogrom in Ireland.

thattequilagirl

steddyeddy wrote: »

People are certainly free to believe whatever but the converse is that people are free to challenge other people's beliefs.

Unless it's directly effecting your work, the workplace is not an appropriate place for robust discourse on different cultural views.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but beliefs form part of religions. Some of those beliefs may be that homosexuality is wrong, darker skin castes are inferior or that certain genders are less. If those topics come up in conversation then they can be challenged IMO.

Is it not hypocritical though (not to mention intellectually lazy on your part) to suggest to someone that you believe that as they are a scientist, they should believe what you believe?

Would it not be a better idea to try and understand why they hold the beliefs they do? Then talk about it, rather than go at it in a confrontational manner? That's just likely to reinforce their belief, the same way as if they tried to enforce their beliefs upon you, you're likely to object to it.

Simply telling someone "You're wrong!", is never going to encourage them to open their minds to learning anything new.

K-9

steddyeddy wrote: »

No but beliefs form part of religions. Some of those beliefs may be that homosexuality is wrong, darker skin castes are inferior or that certain genders are less. If those topics come up in conversation then they can be challenged IMO.

Well if they bring it up, yeah I'd say I/we believe differently, homosexuality is legal as is same sex marriage.

Personally we don't usually bring up stuff like abortion at work, leads to awkward silences!