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:

"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.❜

4 October 2010 12:16

 

There are quite a few interesting statements here for you to ponder over....... This commenter likens that Europe and the Netherlands should be like America. The West is far superior than Islam? Is it really? Who can qualify and quantify this? Interesting.......... Does more Islam really mean less freedom? How interesting???????...

Whats for sure is that the followers of this Wilders gentleman truly are radical right wing anti- Islamic and extremist to say the least. They almost are just like anti right wing terrorists that are against the west??? I am not sure but if there were a political spectrum of some kind........you would place this type of idological thinking whereabouts? How interesting?

This promises to be an interesting trial for this Mr. Wilder gentlemen. I have a feeling he will be found guilty by his country. The shame of it is that he will be a hero and has already become a hero in Europe to so many right wing anti Islamic extremists that his ideology has and will become stronger...

I agree you do need a First Amendment and freedom of speech, it is paramount to the American way of life!!!!

Does it also mean that you can yell FIRE in a movie theater??????

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

Challenges in human rights: a social work perspective :

By Elisabeth Reichert

copyright 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

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 UNIVERSALITY

2. 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

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

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

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

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:"

"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

Iran:President Ahmadinejad: 'We are not in the race for development'

Ahmadinejad: 'We are not in the race for development'

It was great to see the President of Iran's speech in the light of his cultural perspectives which came right around the same time as President Obama's much heralded speech regarding health-care. What a "coincidence" I say. President Ahmadinejad not surprisingly so, made his speech to announce how much "different" his nation was compared to the "west" which has now reached the pinnacle of our development. He is not about a "race for development" so he says. This speech definitely has undertones of nuclear talk all about it if you ask me. But even more relevant to my blog I like some other "cultural talk" that he spews forth:"In the western society, according to the theory of development, all efforts are aimed towards dominance of liberal democracy, establishment of free market economy, favoring moral relativism and the non-interference of moral values intro social relations," he continued. "This definition has a dark future, but all efforts are along this route."

Ahmadinejad, who is embarking on his second term in office, continued his critique of the western developmental theory, saying: "According to this theory, the US society has reached the peak of social development, and, to paint the world in their own shade, they have created various international bodies with their particular culture in mind and they try to sway the countries of the world to fall in line with them."

However, the president said, "It is evident that his theory has reached a dead end, and, even if we want to step along its path, this road will end in a precipice."(1 : a very steep or overhanging place 2 : a hazardous situation).source:(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precipice)


OK, so we are pretty sure that Iran's president is not on the road that the US is taking to anywhere, anytime, anyplace, ever. This is of course not exactly "new" information to anyone that is "informed" in international relations in this region. But, furthermore he goes on eloquently to say this: "He advised the professors that "We have no alternative except returning to ourselves, and the duty of the universities in Iran is to show us the specifications of our utopia and ideal society, so that all forces and potentials move in that direction, and so that we will have a society in possession of its own economy, culture, politics and art."

"Cunningly and intelligently, our enemies try to make us busy with small concerns, so that we do not think and achieve the great goals. "

Well, he does not elaborate on what his great goals are exactly, but who is to say really? Here is a guy that has thought patterns that are not in any way parallel to those of a "western" thought pattern. His cultural perspective is morally, spiritually, and definitely distinctly dissimilar than most of those that reside in the "west". So the question remains over and over again, how do human rights apply in this culture?

William

Cultural Relativism; Is Equality Even Possible?

When speaking of cultural relativism so far we know that certain civilizations and nation states cultures are not the same. This is of course a given. Just a reminder. Anyways we have used philosophical arguments and discussed whether these differing regions and cultures should be held accountable to universal standards of human rights laws under international laws mandated by the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights along with other "formal" human rights legislation which can bind countries under "customary"international law.
However, when we factor philosophical arguments into the discussion of the who, what, why, how, and where, of universality of human rights, the outcome of our understanding might become "disoriented" somewhat, to some people. This is not intentionally meant to mislead or to distort ones worldview, it is only a means to use critical thinking skills to evaluate a given perspective or situation from alternating viewpoints.

According to this very interesting article published 10 years ago in a scholarly journal frequently cited in Masters and Phd programs, I found an interesting quotation. The article is speaking about the "principle of equality" which goes hand in hand with our case study comparison of various cultures.

"The principle of equality" is a fundamental principle of morality and justice. The principle says that similar cases must be treated similarly. If two individuals are the same in all morally relevant respects, then they must be treated the same. The principle of equality likewise says that if there is a distinction in the way that individuals are treated this distinction must rest on a morally relevant difference between the individuals, this is just the contra-positive of the principle. The principle of equality is a purely formal requirement of morality a minimal requirement that any moral action arrangement or system must meet. The principal of morality of requirement says nothing about what are morally relevant respects or differences."

He concludes:" The real substantive issues of justice are the questions of what respects are morally relevant and to what degree."


He is no doubt questioning whether being moral is even a possibility. That is a matter of fact the title of his publication. If you take this philosophy literally you throw the baby out with the bath water literally from a morally relevant point of view. If your justice is based on your morality than you have no morality right? Than this means you throw away justice? Where do we get philosophers like this published? I mean we know where, but how is what I really mean. I hope you enjoy the article. It is thought provoking but I doubt you will likely buy the simplicity of the "principle of equality".

William
"

History of Cultural Relativism; Somethings are wrong with the West?

The Historical Exploration of Cultural Relativism and Its Consequences for Human Rights
Here is an intense article that is around 7400 words; so in no way do I expect you to read the entire article.(unless you want to it is interesting). The author actually presented this as an unpublished paper at a conference entitled "exploring the past anticipating the future." I was particularly impressed with his presentation, but overall the theme seemed to escape me as it appeared to be re-occurring with the same arguments I have already been exploring within the general scope of human rights vs. cultural relativism with a few minor twists and turns. I will quote the most intriguing portions from his paper and make my two cents worth of course.

His first quote: "Cultural relativism is essentially a moral theory, even when it is used for an immoral
purpose. It rejects the worldwide application of human rights because it rejects the imposition of
the culture and norms of the West on other cultures. Universal human rights are said to imply the immoral
destruction of other cultures, which in turn diminishes the well-being of the people of those cultures identity,especially cultural identity, and a feeling of belonging are important for everyone’s well-being. This is the moral basis of cultural relativism. The underlying hypothesis of this theory is that human rights are part of the culture of the West,
typical of this culture and compatible only with this culture. They are therefore western rights rather
than universal norms. Without this hypothesis, their worldwide promotion could not be called the
imposition of the culture of the West. "

Right away I am not completely"on board" with this notion of being strictly a "western" theory. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights may have been developed in the "west" but does that mean humans do not live any where except for in the "west"? Here is the confusion right away. As soon as cultural relativism is factored into the equation, the notion of human rights by default becomes a western ideology. I happen to disagree with this statement and many more of the others to come.
Furthermore he goes on to say:
"According to cultural relativism and its many overt and covert adherents, human rights have a right to
exist in the West, where they are part of the culture and in accordance with cultural norms and values
(such as individualism, conflict etc.), but not in the rest of the world where they are at best
inappropriate and at worst damaging to cultural identities and therefore also to people who depend
on culture for their personal identity and feeling of belonging."
This may in part be true, but do they (humans, people everywhere)not also have a basic entitlement to basic protection of there physical and mental human rights as well as to practice there cultures? Those that can not protect themselves from there own cultural practices do not deserve protection then because that's how they gain there identity right?
And again he disses on the west even more: "The “underdeveloped” or “backward” cultures had to accept the western values, norms, religion
and practices, for their own good. Imperialism and colonialism were considered the best means to achieve this.
The territorial occupation of other countries or regions and their inclusion into the Western Empire
were believed to be necessary for the universalism of western culture. The declared purpose was to improve other cultures by making them more like the West,to introduce progress and to eliminate “barbarism”. However, the introduction of the culture of the
West only resulted in catastrophes. People; were alienated from their cultures and uprooted, and a wonderful world of diversity was destroyed."
It seems difficult and unnecessary to argue against this. The crimes of the West are uncontested, even in the West."


OK, so we in the west are all underhandedly responsible for the fall of cultural diversity because of imperialism and colonialism then? I suppose that we destroyed culturally diverse cultures then in the name of western values and democracy as well? It appears he is headed for the distinction that the west ruined cultural civilization!

You will have to peruse this lengthy article and pay particular attention to how he closes the paper. I am going to quote his closing argument here and see if you can make sense of where or how he wound up with this.

"The culture of the West can be an example of change. It has changed dramatically throughout the centuries and

it is still changing today. Many of its supposedly ancient traditions have been adapted or abolished and this has

often been very beneficial from

(2 Halliday in Beetham, D. 1995, Politics and Human Rights, Oxford: Blackwell, p. 160.) the point of view of human rights. Very few westerners wish to return to the practice of slavery, for example, a

practice once considered as traditional. Most of them see this change as progress. However,

one can only see this as progress and achieve this progress when there is a norm independent of the
existing culture. This norm is used to judge existing cultural norms. Because cultural relativism denies
the existence of such independent norms, it inhibits progress. It can only see what is, not what should or can be.

Somehow he mixes a citation within his text but I did not want to change his citation so I cited it as it was but hopefully you can still read it.He lost me completely. Almost anyways, I think that he is trying to say that since America finally decided to abolish slavery that we feel "guilty" about it so now we impose our own "western" human rights upon other civilizations because it is within "our" own cultural norms? Did you understand it to be something like this maybe? I know he he is trying to say something about slavery and relating it to cultural relativism but he cant quite make the connection with his words. Somehow he means "something" but exactly "what" is a mystery, at least to me, anyways. I hope you enjoy this post.

William:)