Greetings fellow bloggers!
If you click on the headline above it will take you to a most interesting short article. It has been some time since I have visited you as I have been busy with my manuscript which I have recently finished! It is entitled So Many Humans, Too Few Rights. It should be available soon as I have entrusted it to my literary agent around a month ago..Anyways as to the title of my post!! The French as you know have limited the Muslim dress as a matter of security so as to allow the visibility of a a womans face on camera. Some Muslims and those that sympathize with their religious human rights have a problem with this.
So, is this a matter of cultural relativity, or is it a matter of human rights? Should a states sovereignty and leadership trump religious freedom?
France has a considerable population of Muslims in relationship to their own native French European residents. It is apparent that the French citizenry do not seem to have any particular problem with the legislation. It is those that feel it is a human rights violation and the Muslim population that feel that they are being targeted because of their faith.
Logically, the argument and justification for the French does make sense as a nation states priority from a political science perspective has been argued by many elite that a nation-states top priority is SECURITY.
However, also in-line with that, one of our own Presidents, famous in history of America, has been quoted as saying that an individual has a right to do whatever please he/she as long as it in no way interferes with the rest of the individuals of the nation together as a whole.Again it is the collectivity of a nation that makes it strong, not the divisibility.
Every nation state must respect each others human rights! This will always be the side of the fence that I will take. But when it comes to the security of a nation state that must protect its citizenry, men, women, and children, then I will always take the side of safety of the people. We will have to think about the decisions here in America if it ever becomes an issue which I feel that some day soon it may become one. So, is it cultural relativity or human rights?
William
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Geert Wilders Trial..., Cultural Relativism Misunderstood?? Misfortune or Lesson Learned ????
Today I came across a most interesting blog by a "religious" conservative figure whom I would have guessed might not have taken a pro Wilder's point of view in the pending hate crimes against Muslims trial in the Netherlands. Of course this link will take you to his blog which I am positively sure you will be as thrilled to read as I was.
I consider my views to be moderately to the right of center as far as political positioning may go. However, Mr. Wilders has been extremely outspoken against the Muslim community. I need to talk about a quote for you in regards to cultural relativism as this is an academic blog. I give my opinion for you my readers to receive.. Here is a comment a reader of the archbishops blog made in regards to Mr. Wilders comments:
I consider my views to be moderately to the right of center as far as political positioning may go. However, Mr. Wilders has been extremely outspoken against the Muslim community. I need to talk about a quote for you in regards to cultural relativism as this is an academic blog. I give my opinion for you my readers to receive.. Here is a comment a reader of the archbishops blog made in regards to Mr. Wilders comments:
- "Bless you, Your Grace. I’d like to quote from the speech Mr Wilders made when he was finally allowed to visit Britain in March of this year: "❛First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment. Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don’t be afraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better. Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.❜
Monday, October 4, 2010
It is 1960, Can Cultural Relativism explain racism?
First I would like to say it has been a little over a year since I made a post to this blog or to my sister blog. "Global Human Rights Are For Everyone".
But I have had several changes in my personal life and have been working hard on a manuscript. Anyways, I pose this link for you to follow. Please do not be offended in any way.....This is a mature readers blog so I know we are all adults, therefore I am not worried. Anyways, the question being asked really is rather a matter of cultural relativism. The answer is also a matter of cultural relativism offered up by an absolute icon to modern day human rights activist Martin Luther King. Please explore the short link, scratch your head for a moment, then come to your own conclusion. Was the King "off" with his answer do you think? Or did he actually throw his own people "under the bus" so to speak???
I will let you ponder this matter of cultural relativism as this is the subject of this blog.
Happy thinking and nice to see you back here!
Best
William
But I have had several changes in my personal life and have been working hard on a manuscript. Anyways, I pose this link for you to follow. Please do not be offended in any way.....This is a mature readers blog so I know we are all adults, therefore I am not worried. Anyways, the question being asked really is rather a matter of cultural relativism. The answer is also a matter of cultural relativism offered up by an absolute icon to modern day human rights activist Martin Luther King. Please explore the short link, scratch your head for a moment, then come to your own conclusion. Was the King "off" with his answer do you think? Or did he actually throw his own people "under the bus" so to speak???
I will let you ponder this matter of cultural relativism as this is the subject of this blog.
Happy thinking and nice to see you back here!
Best
William
Saturday, September 26, 2009
How do we reconcile feminism and cultural relativism(Yahoo Answers)
I thought it would be interesting to have a look at the internet perspective and so we would have a look at the "average public response" to a very serious question. There really is no right or wrong answer. I have only posted this as I enjoyed this public forum, and the wide array of opinion that was posed. So I hope that you read and enjoy what was posted at Yahoo questions and answers!
William:)
How do we reconcile feminism and cultural relativism?
They are both two different moral theories and in many cases contradict each other. How can we justify using one over the other?
For example, feminists, under their moral theories, would state that it is immoral to, for example, perform female genital mutilation or force women to cover themselves, since this is against their theory and is taking away womens' rights. Cultural relativists would say that each moral theory depends on a certain culture, so it would be ethical to, in this case, perform female genital mutilation or make women cover themselves, because in these respective cultures it is morally right or allowed to do so.
What are your views on this?
Thanks!
For example, feminists, under their moral theories, would state that it is immoral to, for example, perform female genital mutilation or force women to cover themselves, since this is against their theory and is taking away womens' rights. Cultural relativists would say that each moral theory depends on a certain culture, so it would be ethical to, in this case, perform female genital mutilation or make women cover themselves, because in these respective cultures it is morally right or allowed to do so.
What are your views on this?
Thanks!
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
In the US in the ante-bellum South, it was culturally acceptable to own another human being, ie. slavery. Cultural relativity would argue that therefore slavery is fine, because the culture, and, in fact the religion supported it.
There are universal wrongs. Owning another human being, or mutilating the body of another human being is wrong. Genital mutilation is not even done in a medical setting. Human rights treaties have existed since WWII, when it was culturally acceptable in Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews.
Cultural relativity was never propounded to protect anyone abusing other humans in the past, and as a theory it should be dispensed with.
There are universal wrongs. Owning another human being, or mutilating the body of another human being is wrong. Genital mutilation is not even done in a medical setting. Human rights treaties have existed since WWII, when it was culturally acceptable in Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews.
Cultural relativity was never propounded to protect anyone abusing other humans in the past, and as a theory it should be dispensed with.
Cultural relativism is Not the same as moral relativism. Cultural relativism is the basic principle that you have to understand beliefs and values and practises in the context of the culture they are formed in.
So the short answer to your question is that there is no conflict between feminism and cultural relativism. By the definitions of both terms.
And yes, saying that women are equal human beings with human rights and freedoms Does conflict with values and practises of many cultures. It conflicted with European and American Western cultural values and practises not very long ago.
You can't reconcile a basic belief that women are equal human beings with a belief that a culture's values and practises that violate that basic belief are legitimate. If women are exploited and oppressed by a culture, than who benefits from it? Clearly not 1/2 the population in that culture!
So the short answer to your question is that there is no conflict between feminism and cultural relativism. By the definitions of both terms.
And yes, saying that women are equal human beings with human rights and freedoms Does conflict with values and practises of many cultures. It conflicted with European and American Western cultural values and practises not very long ago.
You can't reconcile a basic belief that women are equal human beings with a belief that a culture's values and practises that violate that basic belief are legitimate. If women are exploited and oppressed by a culture, than who benefits from it? Clearly not 1/2 the population in that culture!
Human rights abuses are human rights abuses. It really isn't debatable that genitle mutilation is anything other than, well, mutilation. Aside from the pain at the time, it makes a woman unable to enjoy sex. As far as I'm concerned, violence is violence, and every culture is, in general, against it, even if almost every culture (including ours) has blind spots. Just as we try to reveal our own blind spots concerning lapses in human rights and violence, it's right to call out those in others, even if we can't bring about change there.
As for covering themselves, I wouldn't want to live that way, but it isn't physical maiming, so I don't think it belongs in the same category.
But it's important to note that both these practices are controversial even in their own environments. Many people who belong to those cultures dont' accept them, so they aren't considered "right" by everyone.
As for covering themselves, I wouldn't want to live that way, but it isn't physical maiming, so I don't think it belongs in the same category.
But it's important to note that both these practices are controversial even in their own environments. Many people who belong to those cultures dont' accept them, so they aren't considered "right" by everyone.
My view is that whatever happens it must be the person's own choice, not forced upon them by convention. If they choose to follow the convention of their own free will, fine. If not, no one should be able to force it upon them.
Anyone who has studied philosophy can tell you that cultural relativism is a sham. Seriously, it's an insane position to hold, and fundementally self-contradictory.
I think most feminists would agree that basic human rights override cultural standards. Freedom from torture is one of those rights.
Very different perspectives. So you know, the first response was chosen by the voters as the best response. I hope you enjoyed this post.William:)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Human Rights and The Debate Between Universalism and Cultural Relativism
hrdebate.pdf (application/pdf Object)
I stumbled upon a scholarly analysis of the ongoing debate from a perspective in which I knew was going to be biased in some way or another from other than a"western" notion of human rights and cultural relativism. This is good however, to look at other perspectives to enhance our own perspectives and gain better insight into any subject regardless of what it is you are studying or trying to gain knowledge of. Trust me on that. Anyway I just wanted to post that a conference was held in Vienna in 1993, to discuss the Universalism of Human Rights and the notion of cultural relativism. The nation-states invited were China, Syria, and Iran.
Immediately, from a "western" viewpoint what do you think were going to be the results of the analysis? Should I even have to tell you? Probably not by now right? Of course not. Either way I will just summarize a bit of the conclusions:
"At the 1993 UN Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, a delegation led by China, Syria and Iran officially challenged the universality of Human Rights and put forward the following conclusions:
1. Human Rights as currently defined are not universal but based on Western morality.
2. They should not therefore be imposed as norms on non-western societies in disregard of those societies’ historical and economic development and in disregard of their cultural differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong."
Furthermore:
"3.they contend that the imposition of one’s standard on another culture is unjust and imperialist in nature."
And:
"Relativism as linked to culture will appear later thanks to the work of anthropologists who empirically demonstrated that there exist in the world many different cultures, each equally worthy. However, International Law has only recently begun to tackle the issue of cultural relativism, which first emerged in a 1971 book by Adda Bozeman entitled The Future of Law in a Multicultural World. The central themes of the book are as follows:
1. There exist profound differences between western legal theories and cultures and those of Africa, Asia, India and Islam.
2. In order to fully understand a culture, one must be a product of that culture.
3. Even if a culture were to borrow a concept from another culture, that concept’s meaning would be filtered through the first culture’s unique linguistic-conceptual culture.
4. There can be no universal meaning to a moral value.
5. A universal text on values is a futile exercise.
Theoretically speaking, the debate then is inscribed on a spectrum ranging from radical universalism that disallows any derogation from certain standards to radical relativism which explains culture as the sole source of the validity of a moral value."
In other words, you might as well just disregard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafted in 1948 as being a meaningful piece of human rights legislation altogether, right? These are just some of the conclusions of the Vienna meeting in 1993, however all of the roads basically led in the same direction. I am a proponent of the UDHR of 1948, so of course I disagree with the outcome and the conclusions I just wanted to represent to you the major philosophical differences that exist in our world today, with countries in which we have to make major dealings with, on a globally significant, day to day basis. This is of course culturally relative to everyone.
William
I stumbled upon a scholarly analysis of the ongoing debate from a perspective in which I knew was going to be biased in some way or another from other than a"western" notion of human rights and cultural relativism. This is good however, to look at other perspectives to enhance our own perspectives and gain better insight into any subject regardless of what it is you are studying or trying to gain knowledge of. Trust me on that. Anyway I just wanted to post that a conference was held in Vienna in 1993, to discuss the Universalism of Human Rights and the notion of cultural relativism. The nation-states invited were China, Syria, and Iran.
Immediately, from a "western" viewpoint what do you think were going to be the results of the analysis? Should I even have to tell you? Probably not by now right? Of course not. Either way I will just summarize a bit of the conclusions:
"At the 1993 UN Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, a delegation led by China, Syria and Iran officially challenged the universality of Human Rights and put forward the following conclusions:
1. Human Rights as currently defined are not universal but based on Western morality.
2. They should not therefore be imposed as norms on non-western societies in disregard of those societies’ historical and economic development and in disregard of their cultural differences and perceptions of what is right and wrong."
Furthermore:
"3.they contend that the imposition of one’s standard on another culture is unjust and imperialist in nature."
And:
"Relativism as linked to culture will appear later thanks to the work of anthropologists who empirically demonstrated that there exist in the world many different cultures, each equally worthy. However, International Law has only recently begun to tackle the issue of cultural relativism, which first emerged in a 1971 book by Adda Bozeman entitled The Future of Law in a Multicultural World. The central themes of the book are as follows:
1. There exist profound differences between western legal theories and cultures and those of Africa, Asia, India and Islam.
2. In order to fully understand a culture, one must be a product of that culture.
3. Even if a culture were to borrow a concept from another culture, that concept’s meaning would be filtered through the first culture’s unique linguistic-conceptual culture.
4. There can be no universal meaning to a moral value.
5. A universal text on values is a futile exercise.
Theoretically speaking, the debate then is inscribed on a spectrum ranging from radical universalism that disallows any derogation from certain standards to radical relativism which explains culture as the sole source of the validity of a moral value."
In other words, you might as well just disregard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Drafted in 1948 as being a meaningful piece of human rights legislation altogether, right? These are just some of the conclusions of the Vienna meeting in 1993, however all of the roads basically led in the same direction. I am a proponent of the UDHR of 1948, so of course I disagree with the outcome and the conclusions I just wanted to represent to you the major philosophical differences that exist in our world today, with countries in which we have to make major dealings with, on a globally significant, day to day basis. This is of course culturally relative to everyone.
William
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Challenges in human rights: a social work perspective
Challenges in human rights: a social work perspective :
By Elisabeth Reichertcopyright 2007
I was amazed to find such a recently published book on the subject of cultural relativism and human rights. I will get right into the discussion:
"There is no simple alternative to letting individual countries enforce human rights, for a major obstacle to imposing a universal enforcement is that of cultural relativism, which makes the application of human rights a balancing act. Contradicting a founding principle that human rights are universal is the fact that individual cultures define their own values and ethics. Applying human rights universally, without deference to specific cultural principles, diminishes a nation's cultural identity, a human rights violation in itself. In cultural relativism, all viewpoints are equally valid and truth is relative as it belongs only to the individual or to one's culture, ethical, religious, and political beliefs and are true only in relation to the cultural identity of the individual or the society."
Ms. Reicherts analysis is not really a breakthrough in regards to what we have already studied in regards to cultural relativism. However, she does lend credence to the notion of cultural relativism with her statement"applying human rights universally, without deference to specific cultural principles, diminishes a nations cultural identity, a human rights violation in itself." I have not heard a writer or a scholar express this notion until this book. This is an interesting viewpoint and I respect the way in which she draws this particular conclusion. I will like to get my hands upon this book as it looks to be very good reading on the topic of cultural relativism and human rights.
William
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Cultural Relativism and Human rights; Ancient Greek Law A Brief Analysis
Encyclopaedia of religion and Ethics
BY Louis Herbert Gray
These brilliant citations were taken from this Encyclopedia published in 1915 under the heading of Philosophy. I felt the need to find a historical reference and a "nexus": to coin a phraseology from military terminology (being an ex USAF veteran), which means a link or connection between human rights and cultural relativism. This lead me to ancient Greek Philosophy. I have quoted some text from this time frame to enhance this blogs and your interpretation of the significance of the history of cultural relativism and human rights from an ancient Greek point of view.
"Nature of law.—The Greeks set a very high ideal to the State; its aim was not merely negative—to provide order and security for its members—but positive—to ensure the welfare of the individual. The policy might be called a cultural socialism—oi5 /i.'h'w rou j,'iji> lutita, dXXA Tou et fry (cf. Plato, Legg. xi. 923 A). Thus the State was regarded as being primarily an educational and cultural institution. To the attainment of its ideal, the laws were the chief instrument."
"The general result was an acute realization of the relativity of all human affairs, which in practical life acted as a powerful social dis-solvent. It became a common contention that law was merely the product of force, or an arbitrary and artificial arrangement which superior persons were entitled to disregard."
"This was to be explained, they said, by the social instinct: man is led by nature to evaluate his own actions — hence the feeling of shame (cu'Sus)—and at the same time to strike a balance between conflicting rights—hence justice (SUii) (Plato, Protag. 322B). How was this to be reconciled with relativism? According to Plato, Protagoras held that the laws were the result of conventions imposed by each city according to its own particular standards (Thetct. 172 A, B). It was useless to dispute concerning the truth of these different views of law ; but the event would show which of them was useful and which not. In this system, therefore, individual- jam is supplanted by pragmatism. The doctrine of the Si|a TTJt r&\eus, fully developed by Protagoras, remains one of the corner-stones of Sokrates' teaching. The citizen who has been nurtured by the irti.Nis, and chooses to remain in it, must abide by its decrees ; at the same time, freedom must be allowed to individual thought, and Sokrates was optimistic as to the ultimate triumph of right knowledge in politics and jurisprudence as well as in science; his standard for the examination of laws is a logical standard, and his method necessarily dialectical. Plato follows upon much the same lines as Socrates."
Interesting though, each city had there own cultural laws based upon that cities particular standard? This is dated when now?" Man is led to nature to evaluate his own actions." How much more interesting. Men have been pondering upon these issues for centuries. It is no easier in today's modern society than is was back in ancient Greece for the most intelligent men alive to come up with something that made "sense" to everyone! I am not totally surprised by this. I hope you enjoyed this
post.
Encyclopaedia of religion and Ethics
BY Louis Herbert Gray
These brilliant citations were taken from this Encyclopedia published in 1915 under the heading of Philosophy. I felt the need to find a historical reference and a "nexus": to coin a phraseology from military terminology (being an ex USAF veteran), which means a link or connection between human rights and cultural relativism. This lead me to ancient Greek Philosophy. I have quoted some text from this time frame to enhance this blogs and your interpretation of the significance of the history of cultural relativism and human rights from an ancient Greek point of view.
William
BY Louis Herbert Gray
These brilliant citations were taken from this Encyclopedia published in 1915 under the heading of Philosophy. I felt the need to find a historical reference and a "nexus": to coin a phraseology from military terminology (being an ex USAF veteran), which means a link or connection between human rights and cultural relativism. This lead me to ancient Greek Philosophy. I have quoted some text from this time frame to enhance this blogs and your interpretation of the significance of the history of cultural relativism and human rights from an ancient Greek point of view.
"Nature of law.—The Greeks set a very high ideal to the State; its aim was not merely negative—to provide order and security for its members—but positive—to ensure the welfare of the individual. The policy might be called a cultural socialism—oi5 /i.'h'w rou j,'iji> lutita, dXXA Tou et fry (cf. Plato, Legg. xi. 923 A). Thus the State was regarded as being primarily an educational and cultural institution. To the attainment of its ideal, the laws were the chief instrument."
"The general result was an acute realization of the relativity of all human affairs, which in practical life acted as a powerful social dis-solvent. It became a common contention that law was merely the product of force, or an arbitrary and artificial arrangement which superior persons were entitled to disregard."
"This was to be explained, they said, by the social instinct: man is led by nature to evaluate his own actions — hence the feeling of shame (cu'Sus)—and at the same time to strike a balance between conflicting rights—hence justice (SUii) (Plato, Protag. 322B). How was this to be reconciled with relativism? According to Plato, Protagoras held that the laws were the result of conventions imposed by each city according to its own particular standards (Thetct. 172 A, B). It was useless to dispute concerning the truth of these different views of law ; but the event would show which of them was useful and which not. In this system, therefore, individual- jam is supplanted by pragmatism. The doctrine of the Si|a TTJt r&\eus, fully developed by Protagoras, remains one of the corner-stones of Sokrates' teaching. The citizen who has been nurtured by the irti.Nis, and chooses to remain in it, must abide by its decrees ; at the same time, freedom must be allowed to individual thought, and Sokrates was optimistic as to the ultimate triumph of right knowledge in politics and jurisprudence as well as in science; his standard for the examination of laws is a logical standard, and his method necessarily dialectical. Plato follows upon much the same lines as Socrates."
Interesting though, each city had there own cultural laws based upon that cities particular standard? This is dated when now?" Man is led to nature to evaluate his own actions." How much more interesting. Men have been pondering upon these issues for centuries. It is no easier in today's modern society than is was back in ancient Greece for the most intelligent men alive to come up with something that made "sense" to everyone! I am not totally surprised by this. I hope you enjoyed this
post.
BY Louis Herbert Gray
These brilliant citations were taken from this Encyclopedia published in 1915 under the heading of Philosophy. I felt the need to find a historical reference and a "nexus": to coin a phraseology from military terminology (being an ex USAF veteran), which means a link or connection between human rights and cultural relativism. This lead me to ancient Greek Philosophy. I have quoted some text from this time frame to enhance this blogs and your interpretation of the significance of the history of cultural relativism and human rights from an ancient Greek point of view.
William
cultural relativism and human rights; Ancient Greek Law A Brief Analysis
Encyclopædia of religion and ethics
By Louis Herbert GrayWhile perusing for more history of cultural relativism and human rights through
book sourcesI discovered this book by Louis Herbert Gray published in the
subheading philosophy in 1915.I thought excellent. So I cited a few selected
texts from the book,and posted them to show that this notion of cultural relativism
and human rights really does date modern human rights and
cultural relativism all the way back to ancient Greece.
This principle of relativism runs throughout all the speculation of the Sophists, and, as is well known, reached its highest point in Protagoras. But a justification had to be provided for positive law; even the Sophists had to recognize the fact that society and law continue to exist in spite of the divergent tendencies of individualism. This was to be explained, they said, by the social instinct: man is led by nature to evaluate his own actions — hence the feeling of shame (cu'Sus)—and at the same time to strike a balance between conflicting rights—hence justice (SUii) (Plato, Protag. 322B). How was this to be reconciled with relativism? According to Plato, Protagoras held that the laws were the result of conventions imposed by each city according to its own particular standards (Thetct. 172 A, B). It was useless to dispute concerning the truth of these different views of law ; but the event would show which of them was useful and which not. In this system, therefore, individual- jam is supplanted by pragmatism. The doctrine of the Si|a TTJt r&\eus, fully developed by Protagoras, remains one of the corner-stones of Sokrates' teaching. The citizen who has been nurtured by the irti.Nis, and chooses to remain in it, must abide by its decrees ; at the same time, freedom must be allowed to individual thought, and Sokrates was optimistic as to the ultimate triumph of right knowledge in politics and jurisprudence as well as in science; his standard for the examination of laws is a logical standard, and his method necessarily dialectical. Plato follows upon much the same lines as Sokrates. The S&S-a. r/,s r6\eox, in his view, means that the State, not the individual, is to set the standard of morals and law.
The general result was an acute realization of the relativity of all human affairs, which in practical life acted as a powerful social dis solvent. It became a common contention that law was merely the product of force, or an arbitrary and artificial arrangement which superior persons were entitled to disregard.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Cultural Relativism, A Scholarly Journal Approach
Quoting the author of the Journal entitled Internazionale and Documentation Center "Since its foundation in 1965, I DOC has promoted and served movements and institutions committed to transforming structures that cause oppression and ecological destruction - especially where they affect exploited peoples and countries in the South."
"This final issue is on the theme of human rights and ethnic confrontation in Asia. Some articles are taken from the United Nations Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in June 1993 because it gave voice to some important concepts on this issue. As Caroline Moonhead says: 'Most important, despite the fevered attempts of several governments to prevent it, the concept of the "universality' of human rights, with cultural provisos excluded, was reaffirmed. In simple language, reminiscent of earlier commitments to human rights, the universal nature of these rights and freedoms' was declared to be "beyond question".
This scholarly journals final publication was published in 1994. What I felt was important of course was the mention of and the significance of the relationship between the universality of human rights and the recognition of the notion of cultural relativism. Mind you that this is a scholarly journal and not a media generated article, thus the content should be considered with slightly more merit.
"ATTACKS UPON UNIVERSALITY2. Developing Country Governments are also often a source of attack on the principle of universality. The familiar development/human rights' trade-off arguments are offered. A false antimony between providing bread and securing freedom is postulated. Such governments raise arguments of cultural relativism-while often cynically practicing cultural genocide. They raise issues of nonrecognition of economic, social and cultural rights-while often denying precisely these rights to their peoples. They talk about an unbalance between individual and collective rights at the international level-precisely while perpetuating such imbalance, at the national level, by their own actions.
In the end, such governments fail to secure for their peoples either bread or freedom."
This certainly does not dignify nor lend credence to the notion of cultural relativism. The developing country theory and cultural relativism is unacceptable according to the drafters of this published journal. I do wonder, though, however, how much expertise they do have in this field. The wording of the text does not seem as scholarly as I had anticipated it to be. Either way, I felt this was worthy of a post and the time frame is significant to mention being 1994. Many human rights failures were occurring internationally at this time period in our worlds history. The authors do feel strongly about there opinion!
William
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Philosophy of Cultural Relativism
Philosophy of Religion » Cultural Relativism
A few posts back I looked at a theological approach, just briefly, and related that approach to cultural relativism. Today's post is also from a philosophy of "religion" approach, however, no religious ideology is mentioned in this analysis of cultural relativism. What I felt most important to note, in this particular authors argument, was his conclusion and how he arrived at it. Basically though, however, I want to get right to the strength of his analysis:
A few posts back I looked at a theological approach, just briefly, and related that approach to cultural relativism. Today's post is also from a philosophy of "religion" approach, however, no religious ideology is mentioned in this analysis of cultural relativism. What I felt most important to note, in this particular authors argument, was his conclusion and how he arrived at it. Basically though, however, I want to get right to the strength of his analysis:
"This strength of cultural relativism, however, is also its weakness. Cultural relativism excuses us from judging the moral status of other cultures in cases where doing so seems to be inappropriate, but it also renders us powerless to judge the moral status of other cultures in cases where doing so seems to be necessary. Faced with a culture that deems slavery morally acceptable, it seems to be appropriate to judge that society to be morally inferior to our own. Faced with a culture that deems ethnic cleansing morally acceptable, it seems to be appropriate to condemn that society as morally abhorrent.
In order to make such judgments as these, however, we need to be able to invoke an ethical standard that is not culturally relative. In order to make a cross-cultural moral comparison, we need a cross-cultural moral standard, which is precisely the kind of moral standard that cultural relativism claims does not exist."
Where this argument leads is where many others have lead already, that is to say that to argue for the legitimacy of cultural relativism you must also have what he says is a "cross cultural moral standard." This is the first time I have heard this notion announced. I happen to like it. There have been many other pronunciations of similar approaches with meanings that are of course nearly identical. However, not exactly associated the same way. Furthermore, the simplicity of the entire article makes it easy to follow and is easy for a beginning philosophy major perhaps even useful to an intermediate level to understand and to comprehend. It just cuts through a lot of the"jargon". I hope that someone that may arrive at this blog has a chance to review this article and my review of it. They will hopefully gain an enhanced understanding of the philosophy of cultural relativism.
William
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Cultural Collision, Immoral Relativism?
Stageleft: life on the left side » Hyper-Partisan Mental Gymnastics
Very recently it has been discovered/all edged and I do not have the full details, but I am going to blog about this story as it has already become pronounced here on the internet from "reliable" Canadian military sources" which can be traced if you follow the link provided by the link I give you for this post. Basically, what I would like to say is that the publisher in the blog that I posted cannot understand how in the name of cultural relativism, can the leftist leaning cultural relativistic Canadian government, judge and criticize the Afghan "tradition" of having male prostitution even with young men 15 to 16 years of age?
It is well known that in Canada, not that long ago, that there were laws on the books that young people as young as 15 years old were able to have intimate relations. Of course this has changed since then.
The long and short however, is that even in the name of cultural relativism, how can this be happening? Our American men and women are fighting a war in Afghan for people that have "traditions" that include male prostitution that is legal at the age of 15 yrs? What are these people thinking? There is no such thing as human rights or wrongs in there vocabulary.
William
Very recently it has been discovered/all edged and I do not have the full details, but I am going to blog about this story as it has already become pronounced here on the internet from "reliable" Canadian military sources" which can be traced if you follow the link provided by the link I give you for this post. Basically, what I would like to say is that the publisher in the blog that I posted cannot understand how in the name of cultural relativism, can the leftist leaning cultural relativistic Canadian government, judge and criticize the Afghan "tradition" of having male prostitution even with young men 15 to 16 years of age?
It is well known that in Canada, not that long ago, that there were laws on the books that young people as young as 15 years old were able to have intimate relations. Of course this has changed since then.
The long and short however, is that even in the name of cultural relativism, how can this be happening? Our American men and women are fighting a war in Afghan for people that have "traditions" that include male prostitution that is legal at the age of 15 yrs? What are these people thinking? There is no such thing as human rights or wrongs in there vocabulary.
William
Friday, September 18, 2009
Cultural Relativism, Absolute Truth? or Absolute Statement?
Cultural Relativism
To me this is an excellent philosophical approach to a logical explanation that cultural relativism is not a plausible theory through its own believe system. Of course its up to the reader to decide if they "buy" this argument. Indeed it is rather convincing indeed! However, I am going to quote the most convincing argument and leave it at that:
"Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultural views are equally valid. However, if you test this position under general rules of logic, you soon discover that relativism is illogical and self-defeating. If relativism is true and all points of view are true, then the assertion that relativism is false, is true. Is this contradictory? Yes. Is truth contradictory? No.
Relativists believe that all truth is relative. Therefore, the statement, "All truth is relative," would be absolutely true. If this statement is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement is false.
Relativists declare that "there are no absolute truths." However, this is an absolute statement, which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and the statement is false.
According to the relativist position, I can have my own version of truth. Therefore, a truth for me is that relativism is false. Based on the relativistic rules, I have just established that relativism is false. Of course, the relativist will say "no" to my logic, but then what is true for me is not really true, and, again, I have proven the philosophy of relativism false.
Give it some thought…"
I am giving it some thought. Is there a difference between an absolute "statement" and an "absolute truth"? First you have to ask yourself if this wins the argument! I have never claimed to be a relativist. Do I believe he has proven something false? I am unsure if he has. However I have made assertions that not everyone can be absolutely right and that not everyone can be absolutely wrong. Can there be any absolutes? Are there any absolute truths beyond a shadow of a doubt? This must be measured in terms of your own cultural belief system. I will always place human rights in front of cultural relativism. However, my philosophy regarding absolutes remains my own philosophy. I am not saying this makes me a relativist. I am just saying that how can half of the world be wrong about one particular matter or the other, and the rest of the world be right about the same particular matter, and whom is to say who is correct? This is a thinking man and woman's blog. I am sure that most of you have decided that by now.
William
To me this is an excellent philosophical approach to a logical explanation that cultural relativism is not a plausible theory through its own believe system. Of course its up to the reader to decide if they "buy" this argument. Indeed it is rather convincing indeed! However, I am going to quote the most convincing argument and leave it at that:
"Cultural relativism is the philosophical belief that all cultural views are equally valid. However, if you test this position under general rules of logic, you soon discover that relativism is illogical and self-defeating. If relativism is true and all points of view are true, then the assertion that relativism is false, is true. Is this contradictory? Yes. Is truth contradictory? No.
Relativists believe that all truth is relative. Therefore, the statement, "All truth is relative," would be absolutely true. If this statement is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement is false.
Relativists declare that "there are no absolute truths." However, this is an absolute statement, which is supposed to be true. Therefore, it is an absolute truth and the statement is false.
According to the relativist position, I can have my own version of truth. Therefore, a truth for me is that relativism is false. Based on the relativistic rules, I have just established that relativism is false. Of course, the relativist will say "no" to my logic, but then what is true for me is not really true, and, again, I have proven the philosophy of relativism false.
Give it some thought…"
I am giving it some thought. Is there a difference between an absolute "statement" and an "absolute truth"? First you have to ask yourself if this wins the argument! I have never claimed to be a relativist. Do I believe he has proven something false? I am unsure if he has. However I have made assertions that not everyone can be absolutely right and that not everyone can be absolutely wrong. Can there be any absolutes? Are there any absolute truths beyond a shadow of a doubt? This must be measured in terms of your own cultural belief system. I will always place human rights in front of cultural relativism. However, my philosophy regarding absolutes remains my own philosophy. I am not saying this makes me a relativist. I am just saying that how can half of the world be wrong about one particular matter or the other, and the rest of the world be right about the same particular matter, and whom is to say who is correct? This is a thinking man and woman's blog. I am sure that most of you have decided that by now.
William
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Rationalizing Relativism; A Theological Approach
A Rational Response to Relativism « Butch’s Blog
When I discovered this Blog the author "Butch" had taken me by surprise a bit by his calm cool headed approach to philosophy of relativism. I read and re-read his philosophy and said to myself, "there are definitely portions of this blog post worthy of a share"! Anyways, he goes on to say:
"The relativists deny that there are any moral absolutes, and they base this conclusion on the fact that people have different opinions about morality. It is obvious that this conclusion is not logical. “How does it follow that if people have different points of view then nobody’s right?”* This position was refuted earlier in the response to the Society Does Relativism, but there is an even more fundamental problem that the relativists face in their denial of moral absolutes. Their position compels them to explain how deviant behavior can be morally benign. On issues like rape, murder, and genocide there is no question that any sane person would agree that these behaviors are detrimental to society. How can the relativists support their contention in the face of such overwhelming evidence for moral absolutes? Here again, the relativists’ own argument has forced a position that he can not be defended.
When I discovered this Blog the author "Butch" had taken me by surprise a bit by his calm cool headed approach to philosophy of relativism. I read and re-read his philosophy and said to myself, "there are definitely portions of this blog post worthy of a share"! Anyways, he goes on to say:
"The relativists deny that there are any moral absolutes, and they base this conclusion on the fact that people have different opinions about morality. It is obvious that this conclusion is not logical. “How does it follow that if people have different points of view then nobody’s right?”* This position was refuted earlier in the response to the Society Does Relativism, but there is an even more fundamental problem that the relativists face in their denial of moral absolutes. Their position compels them to explain how deviant behavior can be morally benign. On issues like rape, murder, and genocide there is no question that any sane person would agree that these behaviors are detrimental to society. How can the relativists support their contention in the face of such overwhelming evidence for moral absolutes? Here again, the relativists’ own argument has forced a position that he can not be defended.
Relativism is a selfish philosophy that dulls the conscience. It causes the individual to lose his or her scruples and all sense of humanity, and it produces behavior that conflicts with social norms. Ultimately, it is dangerous because it sanctions attitudes and actions that are destructive to society.
* Denotes quotes from the book ”Relativism, Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air” by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Grand Rapids Press ISBN 0-8010-5806-6."
I would like to say, is at at all possible that if everyone does indeed have differing points of opinion, that someone might indeed be incorrect? And if this is so, than who is to say without any doubt whatsoever, who those people are? This is just a question I am asking. I am not saying he is wrong and I am right. I am just posing a question not as a relativist , but just as an independent thinker.
William
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Social Culture in Texas, Blogging about Racism
Racism: A thing of the past. In Texas. : Greg Laden's Blog
When I discovered this post I thought to myself what I high ranking blog according to Alexa page ranking system on the internet, very very high. This blog enjoys a very high readership base with many links etc etc. Having said that I believed this short narrative to be worthy of a quick discussion. I'm not sure if my readers are aware of the Presidents recent speech to children about school. Anyways the author of the blog I have posted is from Texas. He goes on to remark about a social studies board member in Texas without indicating where in Texas and here are his remarks about the board members remarks:
When I discovered this post I thought to myself what I high ranking blog according to Alexa page ranking system on the internet, very very high. This blog enjoys a very high readership base with many links etc etc. Having said that I believed this short narrative to be worthy of a quick discussion. I'm not sure if my readers are aware of the Presidents recent speech to children about school. Anyways the author of the blog I have posted is from Texas. He goes on to remark about a social studies board member in Texas without indicating where in Texas and here are his remarks about the board members remarks:
"Regarding President Obama's speech to the school children of last week:
"Obama's speech contained plenty of propaganda, in both what was said and what was omitted. He told kids that they may face road blocks, such as discrimination. Really? It makes me wonder which kids he's speaking to, because I'm not sure of where in America minorities are facing discrimination in employment or education. What company won't hire non-whites? What schools won't accept minorities? What banks makes loan decisions on skin color?".
My comment: "Rather controversial speech to say the least right here in good ole Texas. Furthermore it gets better as the author of the blog goes on to quote the social studies board member:"Let me reiterate. These are the words of a man specifically put on the school board committee to revise social studies standards. In actual schools. In Texas.
But wait, there is more...
"Obama didn't mention the fact that he's in favor of racial discrimination against the white students listening. He has already appointed a Supreme Court justice who is a big fan of racial preferences for non-whites and will no doubt make the problem even worse from the high court. Obama has made it clear he intends to do much, much more to expand affirmative action, racial quotas, and other anti-white discrimination."These colored people really do stick together, it would seem."
And then back to me:
These are obvious right- winged social cultured, politically motivated, and racially under toned, remarks that this blogger has discovered about the social studies board member. As my background is in the social science field, I am unsure how such a hard line view about our President's decisions, can be so openly represented in any states school system is beyond me. But, it goes back to the notion of Federalism and shared Federal and state powers along with the First Amendment of our Constitution that gives men with extreme views such as this a voice in America. You do not have to subscribe to his views but of course you may present your counterargument of his views. This part was not brought up by the author of the blog. He just kind of leaves the reader "in the air" with relative shock. This always makes for good reading when you present controversial material. Maybe that is why his blog has such an extremely high page ranking, who knows right?
Anyways, the United States being as multicultural as we are, is not exempt from diverse cultural perspectives and differences.We will always have to keep tabs on ourselves and our perspectives of one anthers cultures and belief systems to maintain one of the greatest countries in the world!
William
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The French and Islamic Dress, Do They Mesh?
France’s immigration minister is wrong to want to ban the burka and niqab - Telegraph Blogs
Ed West's Article published in the Telegraph Blogs pretty much criticizes the French Immigration Minister's notion that wearing of the burk and the niqab by the Islamic ladies, as part of there culture, should be outlawed is an outrage. Ed West announces his quote:
"As a result France, which has a more hardline attitude towards religion generally, is now taking things further, with a proposal by “hardline” immigration minister Eric Besson that face-covering Islamic dress be banned."
In America, not everyone is particularly fond of the idea but our own constitution speaks directly about freedom of religion which does not say what religion in particular it just means, and has come to mean, "all" religions. Thus we see Islamic women wearing this attire everywhere we look.
America people, knowing that America has become the melting pot of civilization, pretty much take it for granted, regardless of the amount of sacrifice Americans have made on foreign soils etc. etc., that happened to be Islamic. But, the French and in particular Europe, are not as open to immigration as the United States as we are. Ed West closes his article by saying:
Ed West's Article published in the Telegraph Blogs pretty much criticizes the French Immigration Minister's notion that wearing of the burk and the niqab by the Islamic ladies, as part of there culture, should be outlawed is an outrage. Ed West announces his quote:
"As a result France, which has a more hardline attitude towards religion generally, is now taking things further, with a proposal by “hardline” immigration minister Eric Besson that face-covering Islamic dress be banned."
In America, not everyone is particularly fond of the idea but our own constitution speaks directly about freedom of religion which does not say what religion in particular it just means, and has come to mean, "all" religions. Thus we see Islamic women wearing this attire everywhere we look.
America people, knowing that America has become the melting pot of civilization, pretty much take it for granted, regardless of the amount of sacrifice Americans have made on foreign soils etc. etc., that happened to be Islamic. But, the French and in particular Europe, are not as open to immigration as the United States as we are. Ed West closes his article by saying:
France’s socialists and liberals are deluded in that they think they can separate Islamisation and demographics, as illustrated by Left-wing MP Andre Gerin, head of the government commission on burkhas and niqabs, who said: “We find it intolerable to see images of these imprisoned women when they come from Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.”
Well, don’t let them come, then, is the obvious answer. Ultimately Islamic dress has spread in France, England and elsewhere only because unrestrained immigration has changed the dynamic of urban life, turning mixed areas into Muslim-only ghettos where French or English culture does not intrude. And ultimately any state that has to legislate for the clothing of its immigrant communities has to accept its immigration policy has failed."
Ed's comments reflect his personal opinion in that "unrestrained immigration has changed the dynamic of urban life". Well welcome to the rest of the civilized world Ed right? I can't believe after what we have learned of the refugee policy of great Britain that we can actually think that it is easy to get into Great Britain, and if so, how do you have to live if you are denied entry and live as a "ghost" or eventually returned to your country likely to face certain death? So is there really a problem with urban life and Islamic women dressed in there own attire relative to there culture? My opinion about Ed's article is simple, if you can not except other cultural practices if they do not intrude or encroach upon your own, than what is the point of working yourself into a lather over it, or spreading hate? That's just my opinion. But then again I am an American analyst looking from the outside in to his society.
William
Monday, September 14, 2009
International Dialogue, the Politics of Iran and Cultural Relativism
The Politics Behind Cultural Relativism
My understanding is that this conversation appeared on international TV. However, I do not know when or where exactly it was televised. This article appeared at a site entitled (butterflies and wheels .com). Although I was not able to discover the expertise or the credentials of the two conversationalists, the conversation contained an intelligent forum and to me was worthy of a post.The theme of the discussion fits perfectly with the theme of my blog:"Maryam Namazie: You mentioned earlier that there is a political reason behind the depiction of Iran or other ‘third world’ countries as having one homogeneous culture. That it is ‘our culture’ and ‘our religion’. It’s interesting that when you look at the West, for example, you don’t see one homogeneous West, you see different opinions, different movements, different classes, religions, atheism, socialism, etc. But when it comes to countries like Iran or Afghanistan, it just seems that everybody is very much the same as the ruling classes there. Why is that the impression that is always given?
Bahram Soroush: You are absolutely right. When you talk about the West, it is accepted that there are political differentiations, that people have different value systems, that there are political parties. You don’t talk about one uniform, homogeneous culture. But why is it that when it comes to the rest of the world, suddenly the standards change? The way you look at society changes. It doesn’t make sense. But it makes political sense. We are living in the real world; there are political affiliations; there are economic ties; there are very powerful interests which require justifications. For example, how can you roll out the red carpet for the Islamic executioners from Iran, treat them as ‘respectable diplomats’ and at the same time dodge the issue that this government executes people, stones people to death, carries out public hangings, and that this is happening in the 21st century. It’s a question of how to justify that. So, if you say that cultures are relative; if you say that in Iran they stone people to death and they veil women because it is their culture, your conscience then is clean. This is the reason that we are seeing that something that doesn’t really make sense to anyone, and which they would not use to characterize anyone else in the Western world, they use it to characterize people from the third world. In fact it is very patronizing, euro centric and even racist to try to divide people in this way; to say, it’s OK for you. For example, to say to the Iranian woman that you should accept your fate because that’s your culture. This is part of the larger discussion of what lies behind this sort of thinking, but the motive is very political."
I am quite a bit in agreement with this simple philosophical approach to the"real world" approach to cultural relativism that the respondent utilizes in his analysis to the question posed. However, where he is going exactly at least with "its very political" I am not quite sure. What might he mean by this? Maybe you readers can comment me and help me come to a better conclusion to his interpretation of the questions answer. I know he has a point here, just what the heck is it? What exactly is very political?
William
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Truth is a Moral Value Too, Post Number 12
Truth Is a Moral Value Too
Although this is a really good article I am mainly concerned with post # 12. Thus the name of my post. The article itself has tones of racism and some adult content so please i let you know that if this offends you please pass this post up as it contains adult language and ideas. Nevertheless, the notions of cultural relativism run high and I have to talk about one particular response to the article:"But religious conservatives must lay claim to a renewed sense of principled engagement, not fiery rhetoric that fills up email accounts and heats up the conversation around the coffee pot at one’s local church. Stop talking of “death panels,” or “killing Grandma” and return to principled debate representing the same concerns of the past: liberty and rights, not baseless rhetoric."
This was basically the main point to the article in how to defeat President Obama from the Republicans perspective in a dialogue posted in the "New Majority" on September 9th, 2009. I thought alright, not so bad. There was talks of recruiting the "redneck voters and such and the rhetoric was really going as far as even getting the KKK and such. Literally racially brutal right here in the good ole USA.
What struck me even more than that was a post I call response # 12 to this article:
"escapevelocity // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Although this is a really good article I am mainly concerned with post # 12. Thus the name of my post. The article itself has tones of racism and some adult content so please i let you know that if this offends you please pass this post up as it contains adult language and ideas. Nevertheless, the notions of cultural relativism run high and I have to talk about one particular response to the article:"But religious conservatives must lay claim to a renewed sense of principled engagement, not fiery rhetoric that fills up email accounts and heats up the conversation around the coffee pot at one’s local church. Stop talking of “death panels,” or “killing Grandma” and return to principled debate representing the same concerns of the past: liberty and rights, not baseless rhetoric."
This was basically the main point to the article in how to defeat President Obama from the Republicans perspective in a dialogue posted in the "New Majority" on September 9th, 2009. I thought alright, not so bad. There was talks of recruiting the "redneck voters and such and the rhetoric was really going as far as even getting the KKK and such. Literally racially brutal right here in the good ole USA.
What struck me even more than that was a post I call response # 12 to this article:
"escapevelocity // Sep 9, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Furthermore as regards the Redneck.
You can see that other cultures and peoples are respected and protected….even murderers and rapists are apologized for and attempted to be understood, what the “root causes” of their violence is….which generally leads back to pointing fingers at the Rednecks Western Culture….society made me do it.
So this is in effect an anti Western philosophical position.
But not all of it can be blamed on that…..though there is a lot of it going around especially on the more ideological Left. Some of it can be blamed on this notion of Orientalism….that we cannot criticize other cultures…because any criticism is merely a reflection of our Western bigotries and racism. This cultural and moral relativism….as opposed to universality of truth….can also be grounded in soft racism, which expects the white rednecks to be better and thus criticized….and doesn't have as high of standards for the darker skinned folks and non Westerners. This double standard is philosophically racist in its very foundation…and is very common on the Left.
Combine this altogether and you get the situation in Europe where the elites and Left have removed the ability of the indigenous cultures to defend themselves from colonization and Islamification….because any opposition to mass or chain migration….or imposition of assimilation…or criticism of Islam(Islamophobia) is countered as racist hate-mongering nativist rednecks.
Its appalling what is happening over there in Europe. Luckily we in the US don't have masses of Muslims on our borders…or it would be happening here too. We have the same issues with Mexican Catholics….however Catholic Mexicans aren't the existential threat to Western Civilization that Islam is….in fact they are Western not only because of their history and DNA, but mainly because of their fervent Catholicism. Their metaphysics and morality are the same (or similar enough) as ours….coming from the same heritage and ideology."
The same poster had several posts to this article which had consisted of 27 responses overall at the time I had discovered it. Anyways, what about what he has to say here?
When we criticize we have western bigotries and hatred right? OK, lets see what else, cultural relativism and moral relativism can be grounded in soft racism? What does that mean? Lets see we expect white skinned rednecks to be better and have lower expectations for dark skinned and non-westerners? To be better than whom? To be better than non-white skinned rednecks? I'm a little lost but trying to track.
OH, OK this is called a double standard philosophy of racism common on the left? Now I get it. Wait do I? hmmmmmm. Still pondering that one. Thank God we are not in Europe according to our friend right? All we have to deal with is our Catholic Mexicans which we have everything in common with(thank-God)!
Alright, here is a guy that's pro conservative but uninformed on many key issues.He is entitled to his first amendment freedoms like we all are of course. But his understanding of cultural relativism and mixed view of racist philosophy have me scratching my head and wondering why his view is like it is. Oh well, its good at least that he has a view anyways.
William
Friday, September 11, 2009
Six Meat Buffet » Blog Archive » Drawing What I See
Six Meat Buffet » Blog Archive » Drawing What I See
Today being an infamous date in American history it was outstanding for me to be able to find a fellow blogger s post that related not only to the topic of my blog, but also as a memorial to the terrorist attack that occurred on our country here the United States 8 years ago today. The title of this blog kind of tricks me, and I am not sure how the author came up with it, but it is irrelevant anyways. It' s the contents of the post that I want to share with you, and let you the readers make up your own mind about "Michelle's" views of cultural relativism.
Her perspective in my opinion is relatively unique, and likely quite "typical" of the average American citizen maybe on an educated guess I would say more than half, of course I may be so far out in left field it may be "ludicrous for me to say" but let me share this quote from her blog:"
Today being an infamous date in American history it was outstanding for me to be able to find a fellow blogger s post that related not only to the topic of my blog, but also as a memorial to the terrorist attack that occurred on our country here the United States 8 years ago today. The title of this blog kind of tricks me, and I am not sure how the author came up with it, but it is irrelevant anyways. It' s the contents of the post that I want to share with you, and let you the readers make up your own mind about "Michelle's" views of cultural relativism.
Her perspective in my opinion is relatively unique, and likely quite "typical" of the average American citizen maybe on an educated guess I would say more than half, of course I may be so far out in left field it may be "ludicrous for me to say" but let me share this quote from her blog:"
"Before that day, I thought the terrorists were over there and that was actually fine with me. Bad things happened Over There, because life Over There was harsh and people more prone to violent acts, and The Middle East had been like that forever.
I was wrong about my subject.
I was a cultural relativist. Once upon a time, those humans over there were smaller than me. They were the subjects of frightening documentaries. I wondered how they managed to live in their culture. I was glad it was not mine. I was allowing what I saw of Islam and the Middle East to be clouded by what I had been taught about tolerance, and how I must lie to myself and avoid the ethnocentrism of calling much of the things I saw coming out of the Middle East “ugly”. At the same time I was being told to treat the violent dictators and perpetrators of violence as babies incapable of self-control due to their circumstances.
What do I see now? Well, I lost my “nuance”.
I see that cultural relativism is the new racism, one that denies humans their dignity based upon their geography. Cultural relativism tells us that some of us are low, barbaric, and inhumane by nature and we should accept that inequality. That certain people are born to be enslaved, and that’s okay. It tells us that democracy is for westerners. I am now the ethnocentric American that I had been taught to revile. I’m certain my culture is superior. A culture that honors life and freedom will always be superior to a culture of death and slavery. It’s that black and white.
A human is a human. Freedom is freedom. Geography has nothing to do with it. Nowhere is a woman’s soul saved by the breaking of her spirit. Nowhere is a man’s life saved by his death. Nowhere is a child’s innocence preserved by pedophilia and mutilation. Nowhere does a man make choices when he his only other option is torture or death. No culture that celebrates violence is a good culture, and I refuse to celebrate that culture as it exists today. I will call the baby ugly and I will refuse to “paint it pretty” until it really is pretty."
I am just in awe with this insightful expression post 9/11 insight into cultural relativism and her perception of that unfortunate tragedy of humanity.
William
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)