We are taught in the western world that we should respect all cultures. This seems to stem from a deep colonial guilt. The book Orientalism, by Edward Said is all about the Western imperialism and it’s drive to “tame the savages” However we are doing the same thing now, we just don’t claim that we are “taming the savages” we are now on “Humanitarian Missions” but in reality we are just taming the savages.
I do think that some cultures are superior to others. I will not claim that one color of skin is superior, for if you removed someone from the inferior culture and raised them in the superior one they’d adapt just fine and live their life as anyone else from that culture would.
Now I don’t want to get into theological or nationalistic debates about communism, socialism, fascism or capitalism. I think it’s hard to argue which culture is superior, and in the end it’s probably a conglomeration of cultures that are inferior however, I think there are some times when it is blatant that the culture is inferior, such as the Taliban treatment of women. They allowed a valuable resource, educated women to go untapped just so they could stick to some outmoded religious ideal. I think this is a good example of cultural inferiority. In Southern Africa people rape virgins to cure AIDS, again, cultural inferiority. Blaming white colonialism for all the problems in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe is taking fertile farmland that with a cooperative or corporate farm can feed millions, and turning them into subsistance farms. I think this is cultural inferiority. Kim Jong Il not accepting that a famine among half of his constituents is proof positive that stalinism doesn’t work. That’s another example.
Now I guess my debate is, where is the line between “Humanitarian mission” and “Taming the savages” and should we even try to “tame the savages” or has it been proven that taming hte savages only makes things worse? Should we let those parts of the world come into the 21st century on their own? Or at least wait until they enter the 17th century before we start to try and modernize them? Are there criteria where it is reasonable to “tame the savages”? Such as, a sizable oppressed modernized population that has the ability to run the country etc…
(Obviously I am looking at this from a Euro-Americancentric point of view.) And I hope that my litany of African examples did not make this sound too racist. I figure it’s probably a touchy subject.
Uggh, this post was not as well worded as I would have liked it to have been. I hope you’ll all take it as intended and I won’t get flamed too harshly.
As an addendum: Is Colonialism ok and proper if it is under UN auspices? Like how would you feel about the idea of the UN occupying a trouble spot, and acting as the interim government until a real working government can be put into place and a constitution written?
I will coin my own definition therefrom: Of two cultures, the one which engenders more human rights abuses, and therefore more suffering, is inferior.
Now we get to the tricky part: What about “savages” (ugh, an ugly word indeed), ie. loose affiliations of hunter-gatherers or independent farming communities who are not under the auspices of any government. Does the above apply to them?
I would say yes. The opportunity to have clean water, education or voting rights surely in no way compromises their day to day lives and culture, and they can take it or leave it. Just because they live with far less technology doesn’t make their prayers (to Whatever) that their sick children not die any less fervent.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest problem from such a culture clash comes when they see that amongst the water, irrigation, education and vaccinations available lies a cheap and almost magically powerful assault rifle with which to overwhelm, rape and murder the neighbouring tribe. The new tribe thus massively increases the number of human rights abuses in the country almost as soon as they are even introduced to the concept. The only way this can be prevented is for governments and their resident small arms manufacturers to be as careful with their exports as, say, nuclear power station parts.
Well the problem of the tribe picking up the assault rifle could certainly be taken care of by a UN occupation force that is willing to stay in the country until a viable government can be formed.
Aside: In general I am more in favor of helping nations that are well on their way to development rather than countries that have almost no development at all. Who was it that decided that people dying do to the natural course of ‘survival of the fittest’ was actually a bad thing?
Nice theory , but in practise: Somalia, anyone? Of course, the heart is definitely in the right place with such an idea. My solution is hopelessly unrealistic given the economic value of the small arms market
Tell the mother of the dead kid it’s actually not a bad thing, given that she could easily become “less unfit” following a jab costing a couple of pence.
Well, I think the idea that people dying of natural causes in a harsh environment due to the fact that they were not more advanced than they are, came long before the UN charter.
What I want to know however is, why is it bad for someone living in the bush to die as someone living in the bush? Why did we ever decide that we needed to come and show them that the modern life is vastly superior? (My suspicion is that it stems from Christian mission work)
And, no I don’t think it’s great for anyone for them to die, but why should it be the affair of the international community?
As for your Somalia example with the UN. That’s not exactly what I am talking about, taht’s more or less a half-assed attempt by the UN at what I am talking about. In my estimation the current incarnation of the UN couldn’t possibly accomplish what I am describing. What I am describing is complete and total occupation by the UN, basically the UN as a conquering force, with the eventual goal of establishing a working sovereignty. I think that this scenario might actually happen when it becomes plausible as more countries than the United States can really support this sort of action. When China, Russia, India and the EU can send troops for this sort of mission, then the UN will be much more capable, and it will be seen much more legitimately when it is a multilateral effort, rather than the UN getting countries to send some forces while the US sends massive forces. We’ve already seen the UN send a force to overwhelm the rebels in Sierra Leone.
Anyway, I just think the idea of the UN completely subjugating a problem area until it’s problems can be worked out is interesting. I don’t necessarily think it’s desirable, in fact it’s not, but it might be a reality very soon, and it might be the best possible course of action.
It isn’t, anymore than it is bad for someone in California to die in California. I believe it is bad for someone to die of an easily treatable condition since it causes unnecessary suffering. If someone chooses to forego such things, fair enough - but they should have the choice.
Because they are…er…part of the international community?
On your “total interference” scenario, I actually happen to agree with you to some extent. Where significant rights abuses are taking place, such as DR Congo, Rwanda, Somali, Burma etc. as much effort should go into the resolution of the conflict as was expended in Bosnia, Palestine, Kosovo and Kuwait. Human suffering is the only relevant criterion, oil and proximity have no relevance whatsoever.
Of course, this would require massive investment on the part of the interferers. And I must admit my “cowardly hypocrite” status since I almost certainly wouldn’t volunteer for the front line myself except as some kind of support/aid worker. But if the solutions were easy, they would already have been done.
Wait, don’t misquote me. I was outlining a scenario, I didn’t say I agreed with it. For the most part I tend more toward isolationism and “Let them die in the bush”.
As far as being part of the international community, is EVERYONE part of the international community? And is our disruption of their lives justified because our medicines and such come with a heavy cultural pricetage, as you said. I suppose colonialism is a Pandora’s Box of sorts, now that we’ve “tamed the savages” it’s up to us to help them fit into the rest of the world, as there really aren’t any more savages to tame.
I don’t see how their lives and culture are disrupted that much (except for the ugly arms trading) by offering them a choice - of course they should not be forced to partake of any technological development against their will. And I agree that the number of “uncontacted” people in the world has fallen to mere thousands, possibly hundreds.
Well basically the problem I see in most countries foreign policy is a lack of longevity. Perhaps we shouldn’t even ATTEMPT to go into Somalia and feed them if we are not willing to pledge a sizable military force for at least ten years. My attitude on this subject more or less is “All or nothing”. I think it’s worse in the long run for us to half-ass it. Look at Afghanistan, Afghanistan is WORSE than it was pre-9/11, sure the Taliban is gone but it’s chaotic and terrorists could easily plot and train there now, supplied by the reopening of the Opium trade.
I would say that the whole idea of humanitarian intervention is premised on the “White Man’s Burden”. We are trying to civilize or help out the “lesser” people of the world.
As for the idea of the UN going in like that I think its pretty easy to label that as neo-colonialism. Or just plain colonialism, only by the UN instead of independent members.
This is not to say that it is a bad thing. I tend to be more for it, although I don’t look at it from the humanitarian aspect, more the possible future economic/political partner aspect. I think that this approach is actually fairly acceptable to the social(?) group I’m a part of. In a research seminar I brought up this point only it would be by the US. I expected to be forced to defend the point against strong opposition however it was accepted without question as something that ought to be pursued and in fact it was declared to be one of the strong points of my paper (whereas the humanitarian point was labeled as weak because it dealt with humanitarian issues). My classmates were all employed or seeking employment with the government so I think it might be interesting to see if that kind of thinking really takes over the government.
To answer you question I’d say that what ought to be done is to focus on the states that can be saved. Some states are disasters and would require Heraclean efforts to form a functioning government, but some are fairly functional and with a little help could help provide stability and spread our influence throughout the region
As for litost’s question: The political system of a state is based in that state’s culture. The idea that the individual matters and is capable of making decisions regarding the fate of the state is a part of US culture. Other state’s such as China or Japan do not rate the individual highly in their culture and as such they may tend to focus on authoritarian regimes or to focus on the good of groups rather than individuals. Politics cannot really escape the culture from which it springs. If you want to change a state’s political system the best way is to change its culture.
Thanks Galrion, that’s a great estimation. You answered litost’s question for me, and you iterated many of my own thoughts on the subject. I think that yes, some countries are beyond saving and it shouldn’t even be attempted, unless like I said, we are willing to completely subjugate their sovereignty until they more or less prove that they are capable of sovereignty.
However, unlike you I am absolutely opposed to the United States doing it, however I would likely support the United Nations doing it. The whole unilateral/multilateral conundrum.
You are conflating two concepts: the idea of placing emphasis on groups than individuals with the idea of a democratic political system. A socialist democracy can place emphasis on the group over the individual despite the individuals voting in their representatives.
Both you and mswas seem to be ascribing the depraved political systems in the countries mentioned in the OP to the individuals and the culture they live within. In essence, you are stating that individuals in North Korea are responsible for their own oppression as ironical as it sounds.
Though Western nations comprise a large chunk of succesful democracies, I contend that it is a culmination of various factors of which culture is but a small part. I also contend that every human living in any culture wants to be free and wants the ability to make choices even if it includes the choice of placing society above themselves.
The fact that most of the Third World is undemocratic is also a culmination of various factors including their economic struggles, and the recent history of Western imperialism. So, again, I don’t see anything particulatly cultural that engenders authoritarian dictatorships except the economic and ethnic strife which in any culture is a dangerous situation. I invoke Godwin’s law to prove my point.
When a culture accepts cannibalism, IMHO, it devolves into the sub-human. If it threatens another non-hostile culture, it should be helped into extinction. Countries whose own governments have failed to stop explosive overpopulation and the resulting famine, should not expect to be bailed out by any other nation. Let nature run it’s course. Countries where religious law dictates that women are subordinate to men should not be US allies.
I think I agree for the most part with litost’s post above. I actually don’t believe any person or group of people is inherently “savage”, but rather they are like Descartes’ tabula rasa, with great possibilities for improving their livelihood, environment, and system of government. Whether we treat people like savages is another matter.
I think the UN, U.S. government, and other industrialized democracies are generally well-intentioned in their giving of aid. We are taught to be culturally relative (no religious group or ethnic group is better than another), but that every culture is capable of improving the way its people treat one another. People are also capable of self-rule, and improving their livelihood and system of government. To do this, industrialized democracies dole out humanitarian aid mainly in the form of programs that try to educate people, and enable them to make permanent improvements through their own effort.
I do believe that our economic and political system in the U.S. is superior to other countries (and thus yields a better livelihood and system of government for our people), and it is OK to try and market this idea to the countries receiving the aid without implying that our predominant religion or ethnic heritage is inherently superior.
Hmm, I am not sure how to explain what I mean, but it seems neither litost or goonhead has hit exactly what I am talking about on the head. I think you can’t seperate the economic system, etc… from the cultural heritage, it is all spawned from that. The cultural system defines where they view each type of invidual’s role in society.
I am not trying to claim that white people are superior over black people, arabs, asians, etc… that is clearly not the case as I know many people of all ethnicities that are doing well here, that are tolerant and very cool people to be around just in general. What I am talking about when I speak of culture is the prevailing attitude in a place. I do think that there is a level of maturity that some cultures get to that others do not. However, I do not think you can seperate the culture that creates the taliban from the people that are there.
In many cases the people are responsible for their own oppression. They let the situation get so dire to the point where the people of Afghanistan would view the Taliban as the superior option to the anarchy perpetuated by the various warlords. Then they support the culture that removes the Taliban, and now the culture that is trying to remove the western invaders. For instance, a government like the Taliban would NEVER EVER fly in a western nation, therefore culture must have SOMETHING to do with it.
Somehow I feel that our difference of opinion is in the way we define culture. I feel you are not getting a clear representation of my definition. I’ve tried to outline it better in this post but I’m not sure I did as well as I could have, so if you’d like to expound on it, please do.
The reason Taliban-type rule would never fly now in a Western nation is simple. Most of them are economically prosperous and have experimented for a long period of time with open political and social systems. (Try Turkey, India or Japan in the “East”)
I do not believe that there is a thing called “Western” culture, i.e., something innate in humans who reside in the Western hemisphere that makes their societies substantially more conducive to democracy. Indeed, the first succesful democracy was established in a Western nation (which you must remember started off a tabula rasa compared to other countries in the world). And that was due to political climate (think Magna Carta, French intellectuals), circumstances and some visionary men. Also, despite being established in the late 18th century, it was seriously flawed in many aspects up until even the late 1960s in spite of the prosperity and freedom most people enjoyed.
Contrast this with a Third World nation. Spent a substantial part of the last 5 centuries or so under some colonial power (while ideas of egalitarianism were taking root). Left impoverished. It achieves independence this century and tries to form a nation-state. Starts off with a huge burden on its shoulders. Strife amplifies ethnic and religious divisions. Might is Right. Dictatorships abound. Let’s take Afghanistan in particular. The situation deteriorates into warlords fighting one another for resources. People are starving. A determined group seeks to obtain power loudly proclaiming that the nation will be back to glory. “As long as we follow what the Koran says we’ll be fine…” How do you expect the people not to be lured into hope? Just remember how Hitler came to power through elections. In bad times, strange things happen. That’s how we as people are. Culture is but a minor factor.
(I know you are not saying Asians are inferior people BUT you are claiming that the West has a superior culture to the rest of the world. I am sorry but that kind of thinking is harmful and has even played a significant part in some of the world’s current problems. To put it bluntly: Get over it)
OTOH, if you are asking if (and how) Western nations should help promote the principles of a free society around the world, then it is a different thing altogether. A short response: I find the idea of a world “policeman” intellectually appealing but my heart says it will just not work.
