Cultural relativism is patronising bullshit

[Jazzratt]

There are three assumptions behind cultural relativism:

First is that technological progress destroys culture, this is false and patently so. For example western culture, with Mozart's symphonies or the Sistine Chapel which, far from being eradicated by technological progress are still extant and even aided by technological progress, for example Mozart is enjoyed around the world, via the media of compact disks and internet radio. Technological progress allows for increased cultural expression.

The second patronising point is the assumption that non-western cultures are not "receptive" to western technology, when in fact this is demonstrably false. Take for example East Asia which maintains much of its cultural heritage whilst being on the cutting edge of technology (China, Japan). Consider also that Muslims during the Middle Ages were much more advanced than the Christian nations contemporary to the period. To suggest that African, Asian or other indigenous cultures are somehow unable to deal with advanced technology is deeply insulting and patronising, the only other people who would say that - aside from cultural relativists - are racists. The fact that the western cultures of Europe were geographically placed to take advantage of resources conducive to technological progress does not invalidate the whole idea of technological progress.

Finally there is the third assumption that all ethical systems are equal - which is ridiculous in the extreme. Pakistani comrades of mine have, for example, pointed out that their culture condones stoning women to death, and worse in some other parts of the world female circumcision is accepted. Not only this but a lot of supposed "materialists" that somehow believe the mystical beliefs of those in colonised nations are somehow more valuable, as if animism and Christianity are not equally FALSE.

If your world-view holds that most Indigenous Americans should continue to believe in the "Nature spirit" in all of us, rather than declaring the supernatural an opiate of the masses then you are a racist.

- A collaberation between Jazzratt and NoXion.

[TC]

Cultural relativism is a symptom of the dominate liberal postmodern ideology (dominant in europe an coastal united states, conservative traditionalism is dominate in the us south and midwest and certain more limited areas in europe).

The belief that all cultures are equal and ought to be equally respected is not based on logic or human and personal rights, but on a denial of materialism and the socioeconomic basis of society. All cultures are constructed and maintained by their class and socioeconomic relations in their society, they are not value neutral but class interested institutions, so it should be no surprize that economically backwards areas have the most oppressive cultures.


The cultures of advanced capitalist societies *are* superior, on both ethical human interest and utilitarian grounds, to the cultures of feudal and pastoral societies, because the social relations in feudal and pastoral economies are actually more oppressive than in capitalism (and with hunter gather societies it can go either way, some of them are better some of them are worse it depends on the exact conditions since they vary a great deal). Likewise the culture of socialist societies like Cuba is clearly superior in the sense of being more humane and ethical than capitalist societies.

It is not racism or cultural imperialism to think that people in developing countries ought to be as free of patriarchy, religious superstition, sexual oppression and violence, gross gender, caste and racial legal stratification, it is racism to think that tribal, familial religious or governmental authorities ought to be allowed to practice such in other 'cultures' but not in the west.


We should not be ashamed to say that broadly speaking, western, latin american and far-eastern culture *is* better than middle eastern, central asian and east-african culture. It has nothing to do with the people and everything to do with the economic system, and just as the global economy is asymetric with some areas leading to greater oppression than others, cultural institutions which are part of a superstructure reliant on an economic base likewise develop asymetrically in accordance with the economic conditions.

[Idola Mentis]

Both those angles seem like misunderstandings of modern humanities to me. Not that there aren't people who preach exactly what you describe, but some of these conclusions are directly in contradiction to postmodern theory and even relativist theories.

Postmodernism reveals the idea of progress as a concept shaped to serve the interests of capitalists. It follows from this that "progress" is not an absolute measure applicable to all human cultures. It is a measure of western industrialization and control of the working class.

It is relativist in that it reveals the nonsensical in applying the concept of "progress" to fundamentally different cultures. Time doesn't move slower in the Amazon. The tribes there have "progressed" just as much as western civilization - they've just done it differently. That doesn't tell us if they're any better or worse off; it just says that capitalist standards are useless, misleading and even dangerous for determining the value of a cultural trait or a culture as a whole, as following such strategies of analysis will inevitably lead you to make conclusions which serves the exploitative tendencies of western industrialization.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

First is that technological progress destroys culture, this is false and patently so. For example western culture, with Mozart's symphonies or the Sistine Chapel which, far from being eradicated by technological progress are still extant and even aided by technological progress, for example Mozart is enjoyed around the world, via the media of compact disks and internet radio. Technological progress allows for increased cultural expression.

Hence the reason why muslim fundamentalism isnt against modernity per se...they are against Western modernity of becoming the capitalist consumer society, they dont mind the use of new technology and so on as long as their culture remains.


If your world-view holds that most Indigenous Americans should continue to believe in the "Nature spirit" in all of us, rather than declaring the supernatural an opiate of the masses then you are a racist.

So wait...Im a racist if I dont shove some Western ideology down the troats of the Indigenous Americans? The indigenous population in Peru must have been very racist against themselves when they were tired of having yet another Western ideology shoved down their troats when the personality cult driven Sendero Luminoso attacked their towns and villages.

While your essay raises some interesting points you seem to focus on the relation between technology and non-western cultures, what about western culture/morality/thinking and outsider cultures? It all looks like yet another excuse for the white man to travel around the world and "enlighten those savages". New version of the white man's burden but instead of a Bible you run around with Marx, Lenin or Mao's books.

For the rest...yeah I think Idola Mentis raises a very good point.

[apathy maybe]

First, why the fuck is this in Learning and not in Philosophy or Discrimination (where I think it started out...)?

Secondly, I too am of the opinion that the claim that all cultures are "equal" is a fucking stupid claim. Obviously, by any objective standard, yes they are all equal, however, we are not living in an objective world!

We should criticize other cultures, we should have a preference for cultures that we agree with more. We should oppose child mutilation, and fuck which ever culture says they want or need it! Fuck those cultures that do things which are opposed to our values. And of course, they don't have the same option, they are wrong, child mutilation is wrong, slavery is wrong, and superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense.


Originally posted by Idola Mentis
Time doesn't move slower in the Amazon. The tribes there have "progressed" just as much as western civilization - they've just done it differently.Indeed. Just like birds, insects and bacteria are just as evolved as humans. (And I am saying that they are! Not saying that they aren't.)

[BobKKKindle$]

Pakistani comrades of mine have, for example, pointed out that their culture condones stoning women to death, and worse in some other parts of the world female circumcision is accepted


We should criticize other cultures, we should have a preference for cultures that we agree with more. We should oppose child mutilation, and fuck which ever culture says they want or need it!

I understand and support these arguments in principle- there are practises that are clearly harmful and they should be stopped, even if they are important aspects of culture. However, if this were extended to part of praxis - in the form of political campaigns and public criticism - there could be dangerous consequences and implications which would undermine more important Socialist objectives - for example, to criticism of certain parts of Islamic and Arab culture such as the Burqa (probably from a feminist position) could lead to the isolation of muslim communities (and this potentially create an environment conducive to the development of fundamentalism) and encourage cultural and ethnic divisions within the working class. Doubtless I will be attacked as an SWP-ite for this point but I welcome your opinions.

[apathy maybe]

Fuck off you SWP-ite! (:P)

Yes of course we run the risk of alienating people of the culture which we are criticising. Just like we run the risk of alienating capitalists (and I am talking of those who support it rather then simply those who own lots of capital...) when we attack capitalism. Or we run the risk of alienating fascists when we beat their heads in.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the "burqa" as such. What is the problem is the whole culture associated with it, and the reasons why women wear it. That's why we attack the burqa, not because women wear it, but why they wear it. And while it is obviously not a big a problem as child mutilation, it could be considered (and in some cases should be considered) psychological abuse, which we oppose just as much as physical abuse.

[Body Count]

The problem I have with this is that there are many aspects of culture that people are not even really aware of. The ones mentioned in this thread, and often talked about here and in other political discussions, is that they are just the aspects of culture that are most noticable, or at least the ones that garner the most attention due to them being so closely related to politics. I'm not trying to make some big subconscious versus conscious debate (Thats a completely different subject really), but I honestly believe that most aspects of culture go unnoticed, and many of them are simply beliefs and values that aren't always necessarily related to oppression. Is Western music better then non-western music, because of it's relation to the world economy? What about paintings? Films? Games? Sports? Food? Literature? Style of dress? Style of architect? Language? Customs? Standard of beauty?The little nuances that we don't even think about? This is all culture, and most of it seems relative to me.

I just don't like westerners making all these critiques on cultures different then their own. I'm not trying to accuse anyone in this thread, or the left in general really, as we really do look at things on a material basis more often then not. But it justseems that everyone in the west has some sort of "plan" for *whats supposed to happen* to poor and oppressed countries. Leftist are just certain that communism is whats right for Africa, social democrats parties are just certain that capitalism is going to save the middle east, and those on the extreme right think that the world was better under complete European control. I don't really have any sort of opnion on what changes need to be made in non-western nations, or any nation but my own really, the only real opinion that I have is that these changes need to be self-determined, and they need to be made directly by the people whom will be affect by the changes. This is something that many nations on earth have not seen since European contact in the first place; if it's not direct military control through colonialism, it's economic control through through imperialist organizations such as the world bank and IMF. I just get fucking sick of it sometimes, I just want people to be left to their own devices, and for all the "greatness" that western culture supposedly displays, it fails miserably in this aspect on nearly every turn. And it's a little fucking ironic imo....I feel that a lot of these cultures that are considered "lowly" to many westerners wouldn't be so if they had just well enough fucking alone in the first place.

I understand the argument being made, but I just feel that many people want the whole world to look like Tokyo, dress like Paris, eat like Italy, think like Berlin, and act like Sweden. The Sudan could have a perfect record as far as treatment of women, athieism, racism, and any other oppressive system goes, and I still feel that people would be complaining about how much better the west is, just because the people haven't adapted to fattening food and video games.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Yeah, I agree.

It's really frustrating that this is such a common view. I was watching "Tribe" on TV with someone who is sort of a relativist. This tribe celebrates females coming of age by whipping them into a bloody mess, until they are actually delirious with pain. I just said something like "That's disgusting, they should probably be forcibly stopped from doing that" and she says "Oh, I know, but we mustn't judge them".

Why the hell not?

-Alex

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Well...do the women want this whipping? Its the same in Western culture where there are women who want to be beaten up due to sexual preferences (I used to date a girl who wanted to be punched during sex which freaked me out), if those women would be beaten as a sexual act, would that be abuse or unacceptable as well?

But dont worry, after the revolution we will all be acting, thinking, dressed and living to the enlightened white man's model... :rolleyes:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

One woman said she didn't and was banished into the wilderness by the tribe.

The fact is that it's just too much to sit back and think "That's their way of life, leave 'em to it". Permanent damage can be caused by this mental bloodbath, and it only continues because of tradition. There's no rationale or anything behind it, it's just a "This is just what happens". Why not prevent this horrid suffering?


But dont worry, after the revolution we will all be acting, thinking, dressed and living to the enlightened white man's model...

Well if 'enlightened' means I disagree with whipping women into a bloody mess for the sake of tradition, then let's hope so.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

And remember that to the tribe, you are a woman at 15. They may not even know what they are letting themselves in for.

-Alex

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:38 am

First is that technological progress destroys culture, this is false and patently so. For example western culture, with Mozart's symphonies or the Sistine Chapel which, far from being eradicated by technological progress are still extant and even aided by technological progress, for example Mozart is enjoyed around the world, via the media of compact disks and internet radio. Technological progress allows for increased cultural expression.

Hence the reason why muslim fundamentalism isnt against modernity per se...they are against Western modernity of becoming the capitalist consumer society, they dont mind the use of new technology and so on as long as their culture remains.
Of course it will fucking remain, technology is simply a set of nobbing tools.



If your world-view holds that most Indigenous Americans should continue to believe in the "Nature spirit" in all of us, rather than declaring the supernatural an opiate of the masses then you are a racist.
So wait...Im a racist if I dont shove some Western ideology down the troats of the Indigenous Americans?

Try reading that again - if you believe that people should be trapped in their mysticist bollocks and not given a chance to progress simply because of where they were born then you are being not only stupid but a racist.


The indigenous population in Peru must have been very racist against themselves when they were tired of having yet another Western ideology shoved down their troats when the personality cult driven Sendero Luminoso attacked their towns and villages.

No, not at all. Try reading the post again.


While your essay raises some interesting points you seem to focus on the relation between technology and non-western cultures, what about western culture/morality/thinking and outsider cultures?

What about it? I'm not advocating forcing a culture on people but I can recognise when something is morally repugnant and must be stopped. As for western thinking I think that some places would benefit from an introduction of logic into their culture (China for example has no analogue to formal logic, meaning they make a lot of basic mistakes in government and philosophy). However it should be a two-way exchange, a lot of the non-mysticist aspects of "non western" countries are actually very useful to our advancing.


It all looks like yet another excuse for the white man to travel around the world and "enlighten those savages". New version of the white man's burden but instead of a Bible you run around with Marx, Lenin or Mao's books.

No, not it isn't. Don't construct grotesque straw-men they only make you look stupid.


For the rest...yeah I think Idola Mentis raises a very good point.

I thought it was a load of post-modernist cack.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Of course it will fucking remain, technology is simply a set of nobbing tools.
Well for the starter of this thread technology was the big factor when it came to different cultures...


Try reading that again - if you believe that people should be trapped in their mysticist bollocks and not given a chance to progress simply because of where they were born then you are being not only stupid but a racist.

But wait...the poster seems to suggest that I want them to have our way of thinking, the whole matter of choice is not suggested. Its you either believe that the native Americans shouldnt have their spirituality (if they want to), or you are racist...


What about it? I'm not advocating forcing a culture on people but I can recognise when something is morally repugnant and must be stopped. As for western thinking I think that some places would benefit from an introduction of logic into their culture (China for example has no analogue to formal logic, meaning they make a lot of basic mistakes in government and philosophy). However it should be a two-way exchange, a lot of the non-mysticist aspects of "non western" countries are actually very useful to our advancing.
What about cases in which the mystic and non-mystic are very much the same, for example the cow being a holy animal in India. While it might sound like bullocks to you that the cow is holy and should not be killed, there is a practical reason behind the fact that the cow alive is way more useful and valuable to the Indian farmer.


No, not it isn't. Don't construct grotesque straw-men they only make you look stupid.
Why isnt it? You come to that area showing what you believe to be absolute truths and morality. You give them a different set of books to read and place some different name tags, only the word religion gets replaced by ideology...sounds like civil religion to me :rolleyes:


I thought it was a load of post-modernist cack.
Yeah so I noticed...good luck with your white man's burden dude!

[Vanguard1917]

This short article by Kenan Malik explains that recognising the superiority of "Western culture" does not mean justifying imperialism. In fact, it is Western imperialism itself which keeps the rest of the world underdeveloped - economically, socially, politically and culturally.

All cultures are not equal (http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/malik/not-equal.htm)

A section from it:

CLR James, like most anti-imperialists in the past, recognised that all progressive politics were rooted in the ‘Western tradition’, and in particular in the ideas of reason, progress, humanism and universalism that emerged out of the Enlightenment. The scientific method, democratic politics, the concept of universal values — these are palpably better concepts than those that existed previously, or those that exist now in other political and cultural traditions. Not because Europeans are a superior people, but because out of the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and the scientific revolution flowed superior ideas.

The Western tradition is not Western in any essential sense, but only through an accident of geography and history. Indeed, Islamic learning provided an important resource for both the Renaissance and the development of science. The ideas we call ‘Western’ are in fact universal, laying the basis for greater human flourishing. That is why for much of the past century radicals, especially third world radicals, recognised that the problem of imperialism was not that it was a Western ideology, but that it was an obstacle to the pursuit of the progressive ideals that arose out of the Enlightenment.

As Frantz Fanon, the Martinique-born Algerian nationalist, put it: ‘All the elements of a solution to the great problems of humanity have, at different times, existed in European thought. But Europeans have not carried out in practice the mission that fell to them.’ [5] For thinkers like Fanon and James, the aim of anti-imperialism was not to reject Western ideas but to reclaim them for all of humanity.

Indeed, Western liberals were often shocked by the extent to which anti-colonial movements adopted what they considered to be tainted notions. The Enlightenment concepts of universalism and social progress, the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss observed, found ‘unexpected support from peoples who desire nothing more than to share in the benefits of industrialisation; peoples who prefer to look upon themselves as temporarily backward rather than permanently different’. Elsewhere he noted that the doctrine of cultural relativism ‘was challenged by the very people for whose moral benefit the anthropologists had established it in the first place’ [6].

[syndicat]

would benefit from an introduction of logic into their culture (China for example has no analogue to formal logic, meaning they make a lot of basic mistakes in government and philosophy).

Logic is inherent in language and in human reasoning practices. Formal logic was developed as a way to codify actual human inference practices that are valid. Formal logic is taught in China....a software engineer i worked with who is from China was familiar with it. But the teaching of formal logic will not ensure an absence of "mistakes" in government and philosophy. You attribute too great a power to formal logic. The dictatorship of the party in China is there to protect the class of professionals, managers, party appartchiks, whose power is based on positions in the state, the army, etc. A mass democratic worker movement is more along the lines of what they need, to democratize society. Moreover, the Communist Party was itself an enemy of traditional Chinese culture in a number of areas. They destroyed a large part of the country's architectural heritage for example. The Communist CP leaders were modernizers. Their main focus has been on developing the country's forces of production and forces of destruction (military).

Some people in this thread confuse technology and culture. Maybe it would have been better to try to explain exactly what "culture" is.

[Janus]

Formal logic is taught in China
Yes, and it has been for quite some time. Only someone ignorant of Chinese society would state so otherwise considering that the Chinese were one of the first to actually systematically develop and include it within their society.

[Janus]

Not sure why this is in Learning but moved to Science & Environment.

[socialistfuture]

you call ppl who believe native american beliefs RACIST? you are sick.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:12 pm
you call ppl who believe native american beliefs RACIST? you are sick.
No they are trying to say that we are racist when we force native americans to keep believing their beliefs. However that has nothing to do with cultural relativism... :rolleyes:

[socialistfuture]

people and cultures have a right to choose their owen belief, be it western materialism or otherwise.

how many languages do you speak jazzrat and what us ure culture? how many countries have you travelled to? just out of interest.

do you defend america's right to push beliefs onto Iraqi ppl because you consider them more 'progressive'. do you support continued converting of tribes? by missionaries because it makes them more modern and able to turn into a marxist for you.

i think you are patronising.

[bcbm]

I hate to jump in late and skip half the thread, but what you're describing and railing against is not cultural relativism but mostly moral relativism. Cultural relativism is simply the anthropological idea that any individual's beliefs and actions are best understood in terms of their own culture, and has nothing to do with anything you're talking about. Some of it seems to be moral relativism (the third point), but I'm not sure what you're pulling the other ideas from. Suffice to say, it isn't cultural relativism, as no cultural relativist who understands the phrase would argue either of those things.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 11:16 pm
people and cultures have a right to choose their owen belief, be it western materialism or otherwise.
Of course they can, that is not at issue. However it does not follow that if that belief system is anti-materialist that we as leftists or materialists should support it.


how many languages do you speak jazzrat and what us ure culture? how many countries have you travelled to? just out of interest.
ad hominem.
As it happens I have trouble picking up languages, I used to be fairly fluent in Tswana, I've conversed in a bit of Malay and have failed to learn much French or German. I'm also trying to learn Swedish, but that's proving to be a bastard. I have travelled to:
America, Australia, Botswana (I was born there), Brunei, Dubai, England, France, Indonesia, Italy, Malawi, Scotland, Zimbabwe and maybe a couple of others.


do you defend america's right to push beliefs onto Iraqi ppl because you consider them more 'progressive'. do you support continued converting of tribes? by missionaries because it makes them more modern and able to turn into a marxist for you.

No, I do not support imperialism but I do recognise when a culture observes a moral and religious structure I find to be objectively less progressive or "good" than another. As for converting of tribes by missionaries - of course I don't support that, I hate religion - although some tribal religions (not all) are more repugnant than christianity I still do not support christian missionaries. Don't be such a fucking rem.


i think you are patronising.

Oh yeah and how come, because I don't extend special treatment to anti-materialist because of their country of origin? Because I have the courage of my conviction as far as my morality is concerned? I'm not the one who infantalises the peoples of various cultures and countries to the point that I'm afraid to criticise them. If you have a criticism of western capitalist society, why should you not have one of eastern capitalist society?

Oh yeah and Animism is a load of utter wank. As is Islam.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 31, 2007 11:58 pm
Suffice to say, it isn't cultural relativism, as no cultural relativist who understands the phrase would argue either of those things.
I've heard this shite from cultural relativists. They seem to believe that other cultures are inherently "incapable" of this advance (although they generally word it as "the natives don't want it" or some other bollocks in which they patronisingly put words in people's mouths.)


Cultural relativism is simply the anthropological idea that any individual's beliefs and actions are best understood in terms of their own culture

That sounds like a way of apologising for shitty beliefs and behaviour. If a culture really does engender such things then it should be destroyed or altered, there is no need to excuse an individuals actions by pointing at their stupid culture.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 06:10 pm
I've heard this shite from cultural relativists. They seem to believe that other cultures are inherently "incapable" of this advance (although they generally word it as "the natives don't want it" or some other bollocks in which they patronisingly put words in people's mouths.)
Then they are not cultural relativists. Are you talking people who merely call themselves that, or actual anthropologists? Because that position is completely at odds with the anthropological view of cultural relativism and is something quite different.



That sounds like a way of apologising for shitty beliefs and behaviour. If a culture really does engender such things then it should be destroyed or altered, there is no need to excuse an individuals actions by pointing at their stupid culture.

It isn't about excusing (that's moral relativism, ie, all actions are of equal moral validity), it is about understand why such actions occur and what role they play within that individuals society; what societal need they are actually fulfilling. The cultural relativist approach is actual essential to destroying things like genital mutilation, etc, as it attempts to figure out why they occur and then try to determine how that societal need can be otherwise met in order to end the oppressive or destructive institution.

[luxemburg89]

Well...do the women want this whipping? Its the same in Western culture where there are women who want to be beaten up due to sexual preferences (I used to date a girl who wanted to be punched during sex which freaked me out)

well, did you smack her one or not? Haha lol, sorry ignore that I couldn't resist. I agree with what apathy maybe said yesterday about child mutilation, we really don't want to support cultures that are oppressive or anything of the sort.

[Avtomat_Icaro]

well, did you smack her one or not? Haha lol, sorry ignore that I couldn't resist.
Well...kinda...but it was more in a slapping way, I couldnt punch her like she wanted to. I dont know, eventhough we are all equal (no gender inequality, that would be sexist) but I cant really bring myself up to beat up a girl. (oh how sexist of me!!!)


I agree with what apathy maybe said yesterday about child mutilation, we really don't want to support cultures that are oppressive or anything of the sort.
We shouldnt support those aspects of the culture, ignoring or hating the entire culture due to only these aspects might not be the solution. So while we still respect cultural differences and different ways of thinking we shouldnt support child molestation and forced rituals. However if a woman wants to wear a burqa or some boy wants to get cut in his face to become a man, why should we stop that? We are not forcing them to have these believes, we offer them the choice, but if they dont want to accept it I dont believe we can enforce them a certain choice.

[luxemburg89]

Well...kinda...but it was more in a slapping way, I couldnt punch her like she wanted to. I dont know, eventhough we are all equal (no gender inequality, that would be sexist) but I cant really bring myself up to beat up a girl. (oh how sexist of me!!!)


Yeah, I know what you mean mate.


We shouldnt support those aspects of the culture, ignoring or hating the entire culture due to only these aspects might not be the solution.

Yeah, sorry I didn't mean hating the entire culture.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 12:58 am
I hate to jump in late and skip half the thread, but what you're describing and railing against is not cultural relativism but mostly moral relativism. Cultural relativism is simply the anthropological idea that any individual's beliefs and actions are best understood in terms of their own culture, and has nothing to do with anything you're talking about. Some of it seems to be moral relativism (the third point), but I'm not sure what you're pulling the other ideas from. Suffice to say, it isn't cultural relativism, as no cultural relativist who understands the phrase would argue either of those things.
What he said.

To explain why a cultural practice is wrong, you have to understand it first, and then attack its justification. You can't hope to make people buy your entire mode of reasoning in one go, so you have to work with what you've got, arguing inside their frame of reference.

Culture can't be destroyed, but it can be changed. When technological progress takes place not on the terms of the people, but the capitalists, the people's culture is destroyed in the sense that it is irrevocably changed, disrupted by something outside people's control. You can't be "without culture" unless you're an autist or in a vegetative state. But you can be forced or conned into living in a way you would not have chosen on your own.

Non-"western" cultures (A generalization of ridiculous degree) doesn't primarily react to technology, but to having certain material conditions imposed on or offered to them. Since "they" are all different, any statement saying they all react in as certain way is completely hopeless.

I do not think all ethical systems are equal, nor do I think they are unequal. Ethics are too complicated to reduce to such measures.

While I do not belive all native americans should believe in whatever it is all those different tribes believe in, I do believe people should have a degree of autonomy. If someone wants to believe the sky is green, what right do I have to slap him until he pretends to change his mind? I think native americans should believe whatever they like, just like other people. Saying all native americans should believe in their native religion just for being of that heritage is indeed racist and also a completely unrealistic and ridiculous goal. Just as silly as saying none of them should - because it's none of your fucking business. That is, until they try to sacrifice virgins to the Big Beard in the Sky or something.

This shit - defending and attacking categories of ideology or belief on the basis of imaginary cultural units - offends me. Pisses me off to a point where it almost makes me want to back to my native religion, just to spite some of the posters on this thread.

[socialistfuture]

does not culture adapt and change and mix with others (multiculturalism), and have different aspects ( ie someone who is poor has a different culture to someone who is elite and wealthy - say a american university student and a mc donalds worker in the same town). lets say they are from the same family - cousins. tho ones dad was a gambler and lost money, the house was sold and they rent. the son had to leave school and work. in the other family that didnt happen and the fam could afford to support the son. i could go on. the point is culture varies greatly.

I would say marxism has destroyed some peoples culture; is that right or wrong, or does it depend on the kind of marxism (stalinist, leninist, maosit, trot..etc).

in the case of the zapatists i would say they have defended the culture in the chiapas against capitalist globalization and imperialism (but not defended the whole of mexico (which is a collection of cultures).

Again I believe the name of this thread is silly.

[socialistfuture]

...
peoples of various cultures and countries to the point that I'm afraid to criticise them. If you have a criticism of western capitalist society, why should you not have one of eastern capitalist society?

I do, eastern europe is economically geting shafted by capitalism and its big brother fortress europe. not to mention its own sellout leaders.

im not affraid to criticize cultures, in my mind western materialism is the world because it is most destructive; tho i still have a lot to learn about history (im not saying is in any exclusive in that respect either).

But US imperialism, genocide of native american indians, colonialism of the 'new world', slavery, vietnam, the attack and embargo on cuba.. the war on iraq, kosovo, afghanistan..etc are blatent imperialism and cultural conialism and at times genocide to me. some marxists have behaved no better (pol pots thugs, FARC at times, the shinning path and many other rightous ideologues).

Im not saying indigenous and other peoples have to stick to their culture and not challenge it, i am saying they have a right to it, a right to defend it (ie their language - for aboriginals, gaelic speakers, basque peoples, maori and so on).

cultural imperialism and racism is the problem. btw do u hate all muslims if you hate islam? have u ever been to a mosque? or is it fundamentalist islam u dislike? as a wider discussion the islam thing would have to go to the RELIGION section.

I was at a marae this weekend, learning to sing a song in maori and learning some tikanga and enjoyed it. I think people learn from sharing cultures not wiping them out (generally).

[bretty]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+June 01, 2007 01:39 pm--> (Idola Mentis @ June 01, 2007 01:39 pm)
black coffee black [email protected] 01, 2007 12:58 am
I hate to jump in late and skip half the thread, but what you're describing and railing against is not cultural relativism but mostly moral relativism. Cultural relativism is simply the anthropological idea that any individual's beliefs and actions are best understood in terms of their own culture, and has nothing to do with anything you're talking about. Some of it seems to be moral relativism (the third point), but I'm not sure what you're pulling the other ideas from. Suffice to say, it isn't cultural relativism, as no cultural relativist who understands the phrase would argue either of those things.
What he said.

To explain why a cultural practice is wrong, you have to understand it first, and then attack its justification. You can't hope to make people buy your entire mode of reasoning in one go, so you have to work with what you've got, arguing inside their frame of reference.

Culture can't be destroyed, but it can be changed. When technological progress takes place not on the terms of the people, but the capitalists, the people's culture is destroyed in the sense that it is irrevocably changed, disrupted by something outside people's control. You can't be "without culture" unless you're an autist or in a vegetative state. But you can be forced or conned into living in a way you would not have chosen on your own.

Non-"western" cultures (A generalization of ridiculous degree) doesn't primarily react to technology, but to having certain material conditions imposed on or offered to them. Since "they" are all different, any statement saying they all react in as certain way is completely hopeless.

I do not think all ethical systems are equal, nor do I think they are unequal. Ethics are too complicated to reduce to such measures.

While I do not belive all native americans should believe in whatever it is all those different tribes believe in, I do believe people should have a degree of autonomy. If someone wants to believe the sky is green, what right do I have to slap him until he pretends to change his mind? I think native americans should believe whatever they like, just like other people. Saying all native americans should believe in their native religion just for being of that heritage is indeed racist and also a completely unrealistic and ridiculous goal. Just as silly as saying none of them should - because it's none of your fucking business. That is, until they try to sacrifice virgins to the Big Beard in the Sky or something.

This shit - defending and attacking categories of ideology or belief on the basis of imaginary cultural units - offends me. Pisses me off to a point where it almost makes me want to back to my native religion, just to spite some of the posters on this thread.[/b]
I agree with what you say here Idola.


If your world-view holds that most Indigenous Americans should continue to believe in the "Nature spirit" in all of us, rather than declaring the supernatural an opiate of the masses then you are a racist.


Although I'm not sure what Jazzratt means here by racist? It's sort of a big leap in reasoning from one paragraph to the other. It's not a matter of what Indigenous populations "should" continue to believe in at all, it's what they choose to believe in themselves. And it doesn't really mean one is racist, because it's not like someone is saying that caucasians are better then mongoloids or something rediculous like that, it's simply a moral relativist perspective.

[socialistfuture]

also surely beliefs are persona and what you 'choose' to believe. right and wrong are different to different people, classes, cultures and time periods.

if jazzrat telling cultures what they are allowed to believe?