Humanitarian or Taming the Savages?

[mswas]

From litost:

(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)

That’s exactly the issue I started this thread to address. Basically the idea of humanitarian aid as neo-colonialism.

Colonialism was often justified by a belief that European culture was superior and that Europe must bring that superiority to the rest of the world, that the whole world may prosper.

Oftentimes we force countries to make concessions in order to receive aid. This is cultural hegemony. We are basically telling them, “Behave more like us, and we’ll help you.”, I personally believe that a united humanity is the ultimate goal of civilization at this point in history, and I am willing to believe that some concessions can be made to achieve that goal. I think that the loss of unique culture is worth the overall gain that world unity will bring about. I think the United States and the United Nations have a loose foundation at the moment that is slowly but surely uniting the entire globe, therefore I think that the imperialism of the west has in the end been good for humanity as a whole.

So my question with this thread is how far should that go? Someone pointed out the UN human rights accords as a good benchmark, I tend to agree. If they fall in line with those then everything is copascetic, if a part of their culture keeps them from falling in line with those accords then I do not think it should be respected. For instance, if human sacrifice is part of your religion, then I don’t believe you should have any rights to practice your religion. If your religion states that women are property then I don’t believe you should have the right to practice your religion. (I do recognize that only extremist Islam really treats women THAT horribly, though most Muslim nations could do better with their treatment of women.)

So how far do you support the European tradition of cultural hegemony? (For the purposes of this argument I am claiming, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are European nations) If you don’t support it at all, do you believe that humanitarian aid IS a form of cultural hegemony?

As a little bit of a hijack, I am a firm believer that an invader cannot invade without being as unalterably changed by who they are invading than the people being invaded can avoid being changed by the invaders. Therefore, I oftentimes thing, that while violent invasion is abhorrent and should be avoided, that it inevitably strengthens both societies, by allowing them to adopt new previously unutilized ideas. So in that light I don’t think it’s possible for one culture to be inherently superior. As I said in the original post, I think that it’s only under extreme circumstances, such as the Taliban, or Stalinist regimes where the bad clearly outweighs the good, and it shouldn’t be tolerated as being equal, at least not in the same way that I would say, Japan, Germany, Qatar and America are equal.

Erek

[gobear]

Every time I am tempted to subscribe to the “Western culture is superior” theory, I remind myself who perpetrated the Holocaust, who slaughtered Muslims and Croats in the 1990s, and who killed off the Tasmanians in the 1800s, (Hint–it wasn’t Asians or Africans.)

Most of your examples of “cultural inferiority” are incredibly stupid and naive. Take, for example, this gem:

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.

Are you saying that Stalinism is an expression of Korean culture? Clearly, you don’t know that Kim Il Sung, the founder of the current dictatorship, was foisted upon the North Koreans by Stalin after the partition of Korea, which had been a Japanese possession from 1910, by the US and the Soviets following Japan’s surrender in 1945. Prior to the establishment of the Communist regime, North Korea had been extensively Christianized, and Pyongyang in particular had more churches than did Seoul.

If Stalinism stems from Korea’s inferior culture, how do you explain the transition of South Korean government from authoritarianism to democracy? Since Korea had been a unified monarchy from 668 AD to 1910 and then a colony of Japan from 1910 to 1945, how do you trace two very different forms of government to one national tradition?

My suggestion is that you not make pronouncements on subjects about which you know absolutley nothing.

[gobear]

Every time I am tempted to subscribe to the “Western culture is superior” theory, I remind myself who perpetrated the Holocaust, who slaughtered Muslims and Croats in the 1990s, and who killed off the Tasmanians in the 1800s, (Hint–it wasn’t Asians or Africans.)

Most of your examples of “cultural inferiority” are incredibly stupid and naive. Take, for example, this gem:

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.

Are you saying that Stalinism is an expression of Korean culture? Clearly, you don’t know that Kim Il Sung, the founder of the current dictatorship, was foisted upon the North Koreans by Stalin after the partition of Korea, which had been a Japanese possession from 1910, by the US and the Soviets following Japan’s surrender in 1945. Prior to the establishment of the Communist regime, North Korea had been extensively Christianized, and Pyongyang in particular had more churches than did Seoul.

If Stalinism stems from Korea’s inferior culture, how do you explain the transition of South Korean government from authoritarianism to democracy? Since Korea had been a unified monarchy from 668 AD to 1910 and then a colony of Japan from 1910 to 1945, how do you trace two very different forms of government to one national tradition?

My suggestion is that you not make pronouncements on subjects about which you know absolutely nothing.

[Ryan_Liam]

I must be on my own in my generation, because I don’t feel guilty that my forefathers built an Empire that expanded all over the world, why the heck should I? If the people we colonised or conquered were in our shoes, they would do the same thing.

[litost]

Wrong. Imperialism has NOT been good for the whole world. Have you been reading Dinesh D’ Souza?

Promoting Western principles around the world is a good thing and that is not imperialistic. Even if you were to call it that, it is no measure even remotely comparable to the imperialism of the past.

Why are human rights accords and UN treaties linked to imperialism?

By its very definition, humanitarian aid is not promoting cultural hegemony. It is humanitarian. Japan doles a considerable amount of aid and it is not a Western nation.

Why do I think you are still wrongly viewing the developed Western hemisphere as the nobles and the relatively under-developed Eastern hemisphere as savages?

(On preview: I see gobear’s post. I pointed that out earlier but the OP believes the North Korean people through their cultural traits acquiesce to being ruled by a ruthless despot. I am getting tired of this neo-colonial dehumanizing nonsense. It just never goes away)

[litost]

Ryan_Liam
I hold you guilty and accountable. Give back all your belongings or else…

[mswas]

GoBear: Why is it that I get the impression that you never join a thread unless there is an opportunity to prove your own superiority?

I may have a looser definition of culture. However, governmental systems ARE part of the culture. The South Korean culture is Korean culture and I don’t feel that we are in any way inherently superior.

Besides rather than actually reading the original post you choose to attack me. Basically I gave examples of what I thought were legitimate cases where it’s not reasonable to respect a culture. Then I asked if you thought that we should respect a culture despite their human rights violations. Or if it is reasonable to go in there, such as with Afghanistan, and remove the offenders.

And there is no country that provides humanitarian aid no questions asked. Therefore humanitarian aid is using your superior economy to influence their inferior economy culturally. When the US, or Japan or Israel provides aid, we all make it conditional. We don’t just hand Kim Jong Il money and say, Here do what you want with it.

I believe that one’s government is an inherent part of their culture. If the North Koreans do not support stalinism, then the North Koreans that do not support Stalinism, are clearly not among the culture that I referred to. I referred to Kim Jong Il’s culture, and his government’s culture. If one opposes it, then one does not belong to it. I oppose John Ashcroft’s culture of authority in the United States, yet I am still an American. I feel that MY culture is superior to his as well. In fact, I think it’s reasonable to remove him from power due to abuses that he has already committed.

I’ve read Orientalism, I know Edward Said’s argument on exactly what you are saying. I understand that cultural justification has been used to justify many atrocities committed by the west. However, MY culture did not perpetrate the Holocaust, my culture did however not stop the holocaust as quickly as maybe it could have, but it certainly didn’t perpetrate it. The Nazi culture is another example of culture which I feel is inherently inferior.

I never once said, “Our culture is superior to that of those Koreans over there.”, i gave VERY SPECIFIC examples of the people perpetuating cultures that I found inferior to my own, and I based my judgement upon human rights. So if you want to get your PC panties in a twist over this, then fine, but you’re really not contributing anything to the discussion by doing so.

so Gobear if you’d like to contribute, please tell me whether or not you feel conditional humanitarian aid is in fact a form of cultural hegemony or not. And if you do, do you think it’s justified, and if so, to what extent do you think it’s justified? At which point is it no longer justifiable?

Otherwise if you just want to parade your superiority in front of me, I’ll certainly understand and I’ll stop addressing it and let you grandstand.

If you want examples of culture that I do not think mine is superior to that are not the same as mine I’ll give some examples. Khatami’s vision of a more secular Iran based upon the more idealistic views of Islamic law. Ghandi’s hindu culture that led a peaceful revolution in India (against a precursor to MY culture I might add). Your example of Japan is another good one. China’s experiment with market communism.

Also I believe that the numerous examples of the adoption of European style democracy show that many people across the globe also believe that European democracy is a superior culture. I don’t believe that people would ever adopt what they believe to be an inferior culture.

As for imperialism never causing any good in the world. I think the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire all caused the world to become more interconnected than they were prior to their existance, and I think they caused many good things to happen. I suppose it depends upon where your ultimate goals lie. I think that a unification of humanity is the ultimate goal, and I think empires have facilitated that. The most successful empires in history have in general tried to govern with a hands off approach. The Mongol empire, the Roman empire, the British Empire, and the American empire have all attempted more or less to govern with a hands off approach. While yes I do recognize that many atrocities, and unecessary divisions have resulted from imperialism, however I think that the unification of humanity that occurs after such events is worth the problems that they caused.

I think that now we are at a point where imperialism through occupation is completely and totally unecessary, which is EXACTLY why I created this thread, to address neo-colonialism, and find out exactly where people stand on the issue.

So if you have more to add than HAHAHHAA you don’t know North Korea’s history and I do neener neener. I’d love to hear it.

Erek

[gobear]

*Originally posted by mswas *
GoBear: Why is it that I get the impression that you never join a thread unless there is an opportunity to prove your own superiority?
<snip>
Besides rather than actually reading the original post you choose to attack me.

Quitcher snivelling. I attacked your post, not you. Learn the difference.

Basically I gave examples of what I thought were legitimate cases where it’s not reasonable to respect a culture. Then I asked if you thought that we should respect a culture despite their human rights violations.

No, you didn’t. You cited instances of rape in south Africa and the misdeeds of the governments of Zimbabwe and North Korea
to indict the entire populations of those nations.
And how do reconcile this statement…
“I believe that one’s government is an inherent part of their culture.”

with this statement…

If the North Koreans do not support stalinism, then the North Koreans that do not support Stalinism, are clearly not among the culture that I referred to. I referred to Kim Jong Il’s culture, and his government’s culture. If one opposes it, then one does not belong to it.

You’re going to have to define what you mean by the word “culture” then because you are using it in such a nebulous fashion as to render it meaningless.

[quote]

However, MY culture did not perpetrate the Holocaust, my culture did however not stop the holocaust as quickly as maybe it could have, but it certainly didn’t perpetrate it. The Nazi culture is another example of culture which I feel is inherently inferior.

[quote]

National socialism wasn’t a culture, it was a political and economic ideology. Are you arguing that German music, art, religion, folkways, and beliefs, the elements that make up a culture, changed utterly and completely before the Nazi era and after?

I never once said, “Our culture is superior to that of those Koreans over there.”, i gave VERY SPECIFIC examples of the people perpetuating cultures that I found inferior to my own, and I based my judgement upon human rights.

Do you not see the disconnect between those two sentences?

So if you want to get your PC panties in a twist over this, then fine, but you’re really not contributing anything to the discussion by doing so.

I am not getting my “PC panties” in a twist (calling ME PC, that’s a laugh!). I am pointing out that you are indicting cultures as “Inferior” when you do not know what you are talking about.

so Gobear if you’d like to contribute, please tell me whether or not you feel conditional humanitarian aid is in fact a form of cultural hegemony or not. And if you do, do you think it’s justified, and if so, to what extent do you think it’s justified? At which point is it no longer justifiable?

I don’t believe that the US should play politics with humanitarian aid. I do think we should ensure that it is distributed to the people who are in need and not, say, sold on the black market or hijacked for the use of the military. And I don’t know what you mean by humanitarian aid being a form of cultural hegemony. Are you arguing that sending US grain to a starving antion is a form of brainwashing?

Otherwise if you just want to parade your superiority in front of me, I’ll certainly understand and I’ll stop addressing it and let you grandstand.

[/quote
:rolleye
If you want examples of culture that I do not think mine is superior to that are not the same as mine I’ll give some examples. Khatami’s vision of a more secular Iran based upon the more idealistic views of Islamic law. Ghandi’s hindu culture that led a peaceful revolution in India (against a precursor to MY culture I might add). Your example of Japan is another good one. China’s experiment with market communism.

Again. I think you are misusing the word “culture.” Gandhi 's active, nonviolent resistance to British rule stemmed from his deep religious beliefs, but the road to independence was followed by Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Parsis, and Christians, so trying to link the end of the British Raj to “Hindu” is, at best, way oversimplified.

Also I believe that the numerous examples of the adoption of European style democracy show that many people across the globe also believe that European democracy is a superior culture. I don’t believe that people would ever adopt what they believe to be an inferior culture.

Democracy is not a culture, it is a political ideology. The Japanese, for example, have adopted democracy, but they would take strong exception to the statement, “. . . European democracy is a superior culture.”

As for imperialism never causing any good in the world. I think the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire all caused the world to become more interconnected than they were prior to their existance, and I think they caused many good things to happen.

I think you need to reexamine the history of the Ottoman empire before you make such a claim. The Ottomans declined from the efficient rule of the 1500s into a long, slow period of corruption and sloth. They helped the world to become less connected, if anything.

I suppose it depends upon where your ultimate goals lie. I think that a unification of humanity is the ultimate goal, and I think empires have facilitated that. The most successful empires in history have in general tried to govern with a hands off approach. The Mongol empire, the Roman empire, the British Empire, and the American empire have all attempted more or less to govern with a hands off approach.

Sorry, but that last sentence, especially in reference to the Mongols, betrays a gross ignorance of the subject. The Mongols brutally crushed resistance and imposed harsh rule on the nations they conquered.

In any event, your esposed goals of the political and cultural unification of humanity are occurring, albeit in fits and starts, through the process of global trade and cultural diffusion. Cell phones, the Internet, and satellite TV are doing more to unite humanity than any army in history.

[litost]

mswas you are plain confused.

You first attributed North Korea’s brutal regime to the culture of its people and when called on it you shifted the “blame” to Kim Jong Il’s culture. What on earth is the “culture of Kim Jong Il”?

You frequently (and incorrectly) have used the word culture interchangeably with political or economic ideology. FYI, in the context of your OP, the word “culture” refers to beliefs and traits of a particular group of people. In addition, your posts are filled with numerous historical errors that gobear too has pointed out. I don’t see this going anywhere.

One last thing I would like to address is your belief on the positives of imperialism.

however I think that the unification of humanity that occurs after such events is worth the problems that they caused.

<snip>

I think that now we are at a point where imperialism through occupation is completely and totally unecessary, which is EXACTLY why I created this thread, to address neo-colonialism, and find out exactly where people stand on the issue.

You are wrong to think that imperialism united or can unite people. You are wrong to think that imperialism at some point was ever necessary. I do not wish to debate your contention that the ultimate goal is for the entire planet to be unified under a single power but it revulses me to think that you find the idea of using force to accomplish that goal acceptable.

BTW, humanitarian aid has nothing to do with cultural hegemony.

(To give you the benefit of doubt, I think you want to debate the idea of globalization and in particular to what extent and how Western ideals can be promoted to change the world for the better. As I responded earlier, I am skeptical of using force and I too believe that with globalization and the consequent exchange of information, the world will slowly drift towards a better future. It has already helped China and may have a serious influence in Iran)

[mswas]

*Originally posted by litost *
**mswas you are plain confused.

You first attributed North Korea’s brutal regime to the culture of its people and when called on it you shifted the “blame” to Kim Jong Il’s culture. What on earth is the “culture of Kim Jong Il”?

You frequently (and incorrectly) have used the word culture interchangeably with political or economic ideology. FYI, in the context of your OP, the word “culture” refers to beliefs and traits of a particular group of people. In addition, your posts are filled with numerous historical errors that gobear too has pointed out. I don’t see this going anywhere.

One last thing I would like to address is your belief on the positives of imperialism.

You are wrong to think that imperialism united or can unite people. You are wrong to think that imperialism at some point was ever necessary. I do not wish to debate your contention that the ultimate goal is for the entire planet to be unified under a single power but it revulses me to think that you find the idea of using force to accomplish that goal acceptable.

BTW, humanitarian aid has nothing to do with cultural hegemony.

(To give you the benefit of doubt, I think you want to debate the idea of globalization and in particular to what extent and how Western ideals can be promoted to change the world for the better. As I responded earlier, I am skeptical of using force and I too believe that with globalization and the consequent exchange of information, the world will slowly drift towards a better future. It has already helped China and may have a serious influence in Iran) **

I’m going to address your post since you seem to be coming at me from a reasonable position. I’ll just not address GoBear’s points because he’s already decided that I’m an idiot. Because well, how can I define “culture” if I’ve already rendered it meaningless?

I never once said the culture of an entire nation was “XXXX” I think that every culture is made up of subcultures, of which I think it is fair to say that Kim Jong Il’s Stalinism is one. If it weren’t part of the ‘culture’ then the regime would not exist, because if I believe that the country should be run a certain way, and nobody else does, then the country isn’t going to be run that way. I need at least a sizable minority to make those things happen, and that relies upon a shared ‘culture’. I can agree that perhaps my definition of culture is not being portrayed clearly.

Something that’s being glossed over is not the giving of food as Humanitarian aid, it’s that we require a certain level of conformity among the beneficiaries of such aid. Generally that level of conformity is a conformity to western ideals. We feel that we have the right to impose sanctions that starve an entire populace (Iraq) because of transgressions among it’s leadership. I think that sounds like imperialism and imposition of will if I’ve ever heard of it. That may not fall under your definition as such.

As far as imperialism goes, I don’t think that imperialism is so necessary NOW, the way things are headed, however, I do think that in the past that it was. It required us sailing into Japanese ports and forcing them to open up their markets. It required the British sailing into Chinese ports and forcing them to open up their markets.

Perhaps a unification of humanity as an ultimate goal is not an ideology that you prescribe to, but it is something that I inherently believe is a good thing. I don’t necessarily believe that America should go out crushing the opposition under the thumb, however, I do believe that there have been many wonderful and good benefits to the world to come out of imperialism. Tangible ones would be the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal, which exist due to French, English and American imperialism.

So do you have a problem with the statement: “Forcing nations to conform to certain proprieties in order to receive humanitarian aid is a form of Neo-Colonialism, that can be likened to the colonial idea of ‘taming the savages’?”

All in all, my I have no problems with my inconsistencies being questioned, I’ll admit my historical background is lacking in many regions. I just refuse to respond to an all out attack from someone who I’ve rarely if ever seen argue reasonably with anyone.

Erek

[gobear]

I’m going to address your post since you seem to be coming at me from a reasonable position. I’ll just not address GoBear’s points because he’s already decided that I’m an idiot.

Cite?

I just refuse to respond to an all out attack from someone who I’ve rarely if ever seen argue reasonably with anyone.

Nifty way to duck having to defend the indefensible. BTW, you’ll need to back up that accusation.

[mswas]

GoBear: As a cite I will refer you to the two posts you have made in this thread. Besides I did my best to answer your points because litost made a few of them as well. If you can’t be as reasonable as litost (who by the way also challenged the validity of what I said) I’m not going to respond to you.

Erek

[Aro]

*Originally posted by Virgowitch *
When a culture accepts cannibalism, IMHO, it devolves into the sub-human.

From a perspective of social anthropology, it should be remembered that historically speaking cannibalism was rarely, if ever, practiced solely as a reason to add meat to the diet (except in extreme cases of starvation). It was seen as a solemn and important ritual for many reasons; to ‘absorb’ the essence of your revered ancestor, to respect the dead and carry a part of them with you always, to take on certain qualities of the deceased etc…

It should thus not be condemned so harshly as inherently evil, unless of course you are referring only to the situation in Congo (and the like) linked to in the OP.

Also, Christianity is still partly based on the same basic premise of ‘symbolic cannibalism’. (Think communion.) Is that sub-human too?

[mswas]

Also, Christianity is still partly based on the same basic premise of ‘symbolic cannibalism’. (Think communion.) Is that sub-human too?

In most cases yes, IMO, most instances of ritual within religion tend to obscure their spiritual purpose. This particular one, I think definitely obscures the spiritual purpose. But I’m fully willing to admit that my lack of understanding is no fault of theirs.

However, my bias tends to be anti-religion. I think that religion is a societal mental illness that must be purged for humanity to thrive. I believe that the greatest atrocities ever committed were done in the name of religion, whether it was wiping out someone because of YOUR religion, or wiping out someone because of THEIR religion. For the most part if religion were not a factor in politics there would be very little to seperate one man from another.

Erek