Cultures whose etiquette is rooted in now-inapplicable cultural situations

Factual Questions
41

Exactly - the second amendment came from several circumstances. (Canadian, so I really don’t care about current gun debate down there).

The original settlers in the somewhat wild east needed guns to hunt, and the locals whom they were stealing the land from tended to take offense quite regularly. (I’m sure we can dredge up multiple instances of cultural clashes leading to outright confrontation). Between the need for isolated outposts and farms to defend themselves, the need for hunting, and the recently concluded evidence of hostile acts by the government of the day, they felt it necessary to say that locals should keep their own guns. Wild west was a result of the culture, not a cause of it.

It’s interesting to speculate why the same did not happen for Canada or Australia as settlers spread west, but that’s an exercise for another day, another thread.

generally, customs evolve to formalize how to behave to avoid clashes and misunderstandings. Often this includes an equitable distribution of scarcity - lining up, not taking the last food, politely offering more or declining extra, shaking hands, polite greetings to set the tone of an encounter, etc. You are always going to have differences where the custom applies in one culture because the situation historically applied, but not to another culture.

Laws and customs have also emerged to handle new situations. What was applicable to ox-drawn carts, for example, doesn’t translate to much faster automobiles.

A classic culture clash, which I first heard in the 1970’s and has been repeated quite often, regards “personal space”. Someone who worked in the British Embassy in Saudi Arabia, IIRC, mentioned that Europeans tend to converse with about 3 feet separation. Arabs, OTOH, converse with a foot or so separation, which makes the British uncomfortable. So at formal parties, the British person is talking with the Saudi. The Saudi moves in closer to converse, the Brit backs up, and so on until you have these very uncomfortable Brits backed up against the wall. where they can’t back up any further, with a Saudi sticking his face in their personal space.

42

You guys should read posts #14 and #16.

43

Moderator Warning

Scumpup, you’ve been here long enough to know personal attacks are not permitted in General Questions. This is an official warning for being a jerk. Do not do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

44

Could well be - I haven’t read the story in many years, my memory of it is pretty vague. Though now I’m inspired to re-read it - Levy is indeed an awesome author. :smiley:

45

I’ve had doctors do this to me - so at least some of them seem to like the practice

46

3 feet is a lot further than I’m used to, but often it isn’t even a matter of space. Many Europeans have trouble with Americans impinging in our personal space while actually standing a lot further than we do. I spent years trying to rationalize why and being unable to do so, I think it may have to do with the speeds: Americans tend to move at constant speeds and stop suddenly, whereas we would start signaling “I see you, I’m stopping, I’m just getting close enough that we won’t be standing in the middle of the way” a couple of meters back.

47

GOD BLESS YOU

OMG It’s the WEIRDEST etiquette thingy when you think about it. Why the hell do we have to say something after someone performs a bodily function? It’s so WEIRD! All the other etiquette stuff we do is chained to SOME concrete thing that has to do with the nature of the human social interaction, but god bless you is just randomly thrown in there.

it’s inapplicable now because we now know how disease/pestilence works, whereas medieval peoples thought it was caused by “bad spirits” or whatever. So we now know there’s nothing you can say that effects a disease.

48

Visiting the homes of various Irish language tutors, I noticed that all of them spoke to their dogs in English, and to their cats in Irish. It was explained to me that this is a result of the penal years, when speaking Irish was a hanging offense. One speaks to the cat only at home, so it’s safe to use the “private” language. Working with the dog out in the fields made Irish commands much too dangerous.

It’s common in the USA for parents to teach their children to eat everything on their plates, even on pain of violent punishment, or being forced to sit before the plate for hours. (These extremes are far less common in the current generation.) This is a result of the Great Depression, when food was scarce even in formerly well-off families, and adults were faced with regretting having wasted food when they were younger.

This has now been passed down into the third and fourth generation, with most folks now having no idea where it comes from. It can be a real problem for those who never confront and disabuse themselves of the requirement, especially given the insanely large portions provided by so many restaurants. I’ve seen co-workers in physical pain having unconsciously forced themselves to finish an over-large meal.

49

Some Arab and Indian cultures have a taboo about touching food with one’s left hand - because the left hand is reserved for toilet-related hygene duty. My assumption is that the taboo persists even in places where using a bidet and/or toilet paper (instead of your bare left hand) and washing your hands after using the toilet has become the norm.

50

Hey, how about not having a 13th floor? Oh, you’re on the 14th floor? The one after the 12th? No problem!

Jesus Christ.

51

It does. I was taught to eat one handed (at least when not using a knife and fork) even though my parents had emigrated from India 8 years before I was born and had enthusiastically adopted toilet paper more or less immediately.

52

How about the adage “women and children first”, which makes perfect sense if you’re in a small tribe of 300 people. If your tribe consists of 100 adult men, 100 adult women, and 50 little boys and 50 little girls, and then some catastrophe comes along that will definitely kill 30 people, who should be the first to die? The tribe can afford to lose 30 men and have a better chance at long-term survival than if they had lost 30 women or 30 children or 10 men 10 women 10 children. But when you’re part of a country of several million and you put a thousand upper class rich people onto a cruise ship which doesn’t have enough life boats, the long term survival of the tribe is not significantly threatened regardless of who you let into the life boats.

53

You’re right that this is stupid. But it doesn’t fit the requirements of the OP, which asks for things that are no longer relevant.
The fear of the 13th floor (and the number 13 in general) was never applicable to a certain cultural situation…it was always stupid. And still is. :slight_smile:

54

The Qur’an (Surah 4, An-Nisa) states that polygamy is justified because it provides a form of welfare for orphan girls. Nowadays, girls have a lot more opportunities for economic stability other than joining a harem.

55

Regarding the Seconds Ammendment business, I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned the elephant in the room: America, as a culture, has a deep-seated distrust of the government. We tend to view it as a necessary evil, and nothing more. This goes all the way back to colonial times, when we had a revolution because the Crown was being an intolerable asshole in the way they were treating the colonies.

Whether this attitude is outdated is another question entirely.

56

The adage was never based on direct genetic survival, but rather on notions of galantry and honour as a social norm. Having people believe in gallantry and honour as a social norm has obvious benefits for that society - for example, it forms the basis of the type of social subornination that makes an army formidable.

The “women and children first” thing is directly tied to that - that exact phrase was derived from the Birkenhead disaster:

It was eulogized at the time as an example of military discipline - the understanding being, of course, that a society that creates soldiers with the discipline to “stand an’ be still to the Birkenhead Drill”, as Kipling put it, would be better at defeating other societies in battle, than ones that could not.

This was later generalized to being the society that could produce men that have such discipline would be better off, and the “Birkenhead Drill” of ‘women and children first’ came to be applied generally.

Which, one could point out, is perfectly sexist in today’s society (the “women” part anyway) - but the ‘inappropriateness’ dates back to the 19th century, not to neolithic times.

57

given what the NSA has been doing, and the DOJ is trying to do, I don’t think it’s outdated.

58

That is true. However, women and children first is hardly inapplicable today. As has been shown by studies, where such an order is given, women and children have high survival rates, while they tend to perish much more easily when its not, like the M/S Estonia, where the majority of survivors were young men. In a disaster, everyone panics, and in the push to get off men are much more likely to be able to. Therefore, women and children first has good reasons to be followed, to maintain order and to get everyone a chance to survive.

59

That’s a fair point - men on average being larger and stronger than women. I suppose any social rule which had the effect of avoiding a panicked rout would be beneficial. One could probably shorten it to “children first” and have the same impact.

One thing is sure though - having the crew save itself before the passengers still arouses universal condemnation - there have been a couple of famous examples of that lately (in particular, that disaster in Korea).

60

Saluting, tipping one’s hat, shaking hands and clinking glasses together during a toast are all customs that originated with medieval noblemen signalling to each other that “I’m not planning to kill you”.