So, some people simply live by tradition, others like me try to make sense out of everything (although im obviously too influence by tradition), and make our own way through society.

So my question is, how much should you live by tradition and how much should you live after what makes sense to you? This question becomes a lot more obvious when you move to another country and see all the things that doesnt make sense in a culture, and how ppl simply defend it by "thats how it is, just do it and dont argue". Also when you move to another culture you must try to respect their culture, cause you are a guest of their country, but to what extent? This is also a higly relevant question when it comes to immigration policies, how much should you expect the imigrants to integrate into society, and how much should you let them go their way?

Personally i think that "conserving" cultures is bullshit and the only reason it excist is because our brains have problems adopting to new rational thoughts that contraaddicts to the way of thinking we are used to.

Im not really sure what im trying to say, but perhaps someone will understand my muddled thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Personally i think that \"conserving\" cultures is bullshit and the only reason it excist is because our brains have problems adopting to new rational thoughts that contraaddicts to the way of thinking we are used to.

absolutely agree with you. cultures do not a priori deserve to be respected. everything should have to pass a rationalist test. i think ppl that go on about preserving cultures for that sake alone to be weird. the entire history of human civilisation has seen cultures erode, fade away and be given birth. its just how it is.

i certainly believe that some cultures are superior to others and there are aspects of cultures that certainly should not exist, especially not under the pathetic banner of 'its not our place to judge someone elses culture' of course it is.

___________________

It has long been my opinion that culture exists only for those humans too stupid or too lazy to form their own point of view.

It's a psychological and intellectual crutch which oversimplifies pretty much every major decision in life so that people who would otherwise be paralyzed by the complexity and the subjectivity of our existence can operate with some degree of coherence. I have yet to be exposed to a culture I didn't find altogether revolting - I think that the simple-mindedness which culture must exhibit in order to spread effectively itself repulses me. In the end, cultural traits will never be preserved or abolished on the basis of genuine reason - it would be contradictory to the very nature of culture.

I for one give little regard to culture. As far as policy goes - it should give little regard to culture as well.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN absolutely agree with you. cultures do not a priori deserve to be respected. everything should have to pass a rationalist test. i think ppl that go on about preserving cultures for that sake alone to be weird. the entire history of human civilisation has seen cultures erode, fade away and be given birth. its just how it is. i certainly believe that some cultures are superior to others and there are aspects of cultures that certainly should not exist, especially not under the pathetic banner of 'its not our place to judge someone elses culture' of course it is.

How do you conduct a rationalist test? Do countries that produce the biggest and best franchises score highest?

I'm a staunch supporter of cultural preservation (but maybe that's because i'm a wierdo? ) I don't think it is objectively possible to claim one culture is superior to another; discrimination is how our brains works, how we differentiate between Mum and Dad during infancy. We are all ethnocentric at an archetypical level (except for sociopaths), hence why everyone here will claim that "in the bigger scheme of things its our contribution to technological advancements / science / art /literature / religion / beer that makes our culture superior to others"

here are some interesting pics i took in Laos; the kids outside of the cities don't see foreigners very often (if at all) but they're still branded by the omnipotent adidas:
http://photobucket.com/albums/y67/t...urrent=boys.jpg

notice the back of the middle girls shirt:
http://photobucket.com/albums/y67/t...current=shy.jpg
Those are the types of bombs the USA secretly dropped on Laos during the Indochina war. One tonne for every man woman and child.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Also when you move to another culture you must try to respect their culture, cause you are a guest of their country, but to what extent?

that reminds me of a part of a brilliant book i just read, where the ambivalent writer is in a "people-market" in Bombay watching children be sold of as slaves to the highest bidders:

quote:

"I was a stranger in that strange land: it wasn't my country, and it wasn't my culture. I had to know more. I had to know the language that was spoken at the very least, before i could presume to interfere ...He told me that the children would've died, if they hadn't found there way to the people market. Professional recruiters known as talent scouts roamed from one catastrophe to another, from drought to earthquake to flood. Starving parents who'd already watched one or more of their chidren sicken, and die, blessed the scouts, kneeling to touch their feet. They begged them to buy a son or a daughter, so that at least that one child would live. The boys on sale there were destined to work as camel jockeys in Saudie Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf States. Some would be maimed in the camel races that provided afternoon entertainment for the rich sheiks. Some would die. The girls work in households throughout the Middle East. Some of them would be used for sex. But they were alive, Prabaker said, those boys and girls. They were the lucky ones. For every child who passed through the people-market there were a hundred others, or more, who'd starved in unutterable agonies and were dead" - Shantaram

'its not our place to judge someone elses culture' from a point of ignorance

heres a good joke i think applies to western culture pretty well
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work, driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to a job that you need so you can pay for the clothes and the car... and the house that you leave empty all day in order to afford to live in it"

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew This is also a higly relevant question when it comes to immigration policies, how much should you expect the imigrants to integrate into society, and how much should you let them go their way?

don't get me started on Howard and Downers policy to incarcerate those evil boat people in their state of the art rickety boats who come to Australia illegaly to terrorise honest and decent A Current Affair watching Aussies.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It has long been my opinion that culture exists only for those humans too stupid or too lazy to form their own point of view. It's a psychological and intellectual crutch which oversimplifies pretty much every major decision in life so that people who would otherwise be paralyzed by the complexity and the subjectivity of our existence can operate with some degree of coherence. I have yet to be exposed to a culture I didn't find altogether revolting - I think that the simple-mindedness which culture must exhibit in order to spread effectively itself repulses me. In the end, cultural traits will never be preserved or abolished on the basis of genuine reason - it would be contradictory to the very nature of culture. I for one give little regard to culture. As far as policy goes - it should give little regard to culture as well.

Nihilist, Arbiter?

quote:

Originally posted by tathi How do you conduct a rationalist test? Do countries that produce the biggest and best franchises score highest?

same way as you assess everything else- weigh up the pros and cons. note- im not damning any culture specifically, im talking about elements of cultures that are disgraceful.

you ask yourself questions like-
-do i think that female genital-mutilation is something that should exist on this planet?
-do i think that preventing women a voice or a vote or any type of social equality is a good thing?
-do i think that cutting people's hands off is a great way of dealing with social issues like crime?
-do i think that we should desire countries with brutal policies of social control and have that social control resting in the hands of one leader?

etc etc etc.

and no, im far from screaming the beauties and inherent goodness of liberal political systems. but they are *better* as far as im concerned.

at the end of the day, culture is nothing more than the manifestation of an idea(s). and not all ideas are equal. to argue that a distasteful practice or existing inequality should remain just becoz it has been that way for thousands of years is intellectually corrupt.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by tathi I'm a staunch supporter of cultural preservation

The thing is, though, it's not for us - as outsiders - to say that some "cultures" should be preserved, it's those living within a certain culture who choose whether or not to follow the memetic processes that are that particular culture. In other words, the people that make up a certain culture should be the ones who decide its structure and ultimate fate and it shouldn't be for us, as members of external cultures, to dictate to these people how they should live their lives.

And that's the thing about culture - it's inherently democratic. Culture, ultimately, only exists insofar as a large percentage of the population support and participate in it. If people decide that the culture they live in is no longer suitable to their needs, then they won't participate in the observation of the practices that constitute that culture. If a majority of the population begins to feel that way, then the culture dies off and a new one takes its place. Like PKC said, every culture on the planet today only exists by virtue of having either usurped or evolved from an earlier one, so - as long as it is the people within a particular culture who dictate its fate (that is, a different culture hasn't been imposed on them forcefully) - cultural evolution is nothing that you should worry yourself about. If people wish to replace old practices with new ones, then that is their choice.

quote:

I don't think it is objectively possible to claim one culture is superior to another

I think you're basically right on this point (in that comparing the value of different cultures is a difficult and meaningless task) but cultural relativism is still no reason to excuse crimes against humanity, regardless of the cultural context.

If I can turn this round into (another) left vs right debate, when it comes to culture, the failure of the left has traditionally been excusing human rights violations on the basis of cultural relativity - that is, that merely because a culture assents to practices such as the ones mentioned by PKC, that makes them tolerable and does not allow us any room to criticise these practices from the outside. From my perspective as a pseudo-humanist (that is, a belief in a universal set of moral values stemming from wants and needs shared by the whole of the human species), this is wrong - a person in Uzbekistan (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter) should be able to live in a society that encourages free speech, denounces torture, allows freedom of religion and that also allows every other basic rights to life and liberty. If we humans - of all cultures - are connected by anything at all, it is the same basic desire for sanctity over their own physical and mental person and no government - representing any culture - should be allowed to intrude upon that. If there is any universality to morality (or - indeed - the human condition), then cultures may be criticised by those external to it insofar as they infringe on the basic rights common to all people that can be inferred from this moral system.

Er, hope that made some sense.

quote:

Originally posted by tathi don't get me started on Howard and Downers policy to incarcerate those evil boat people in their state of the art rickety boats who come to Australia illegaly to terrorise honest and decent A Current Affair watching Aussies.

I really do not understand the Liberals' stance on immigration. Let's see:

• Our population growth is slowing significantly. Within 20 or so years, we'll probably be experiencing negative growth.

Their solution: We'll bribe women with $3000 to have a child (because we all know that the women who are in it purely for the money make the best mothers!), while cutting off welfare payments to mothers who aren't working (didn't want to stay at home and try for that third child anyway, did you?) and restricting IVF access (take that willing but unable mothers-to-be!).

My solution: Increase immigration.

• We're facing a severe shortage of skilled labourers.

Their solution: We'll encourage kids to drop out of school after year 10 (yeah, that's one way to ensure a brighter future!) while doubling HECS bills for TAFE students.

My solution: Increase immigration of skilled labourers.

• Many rural industries (orchards, vinyards etc.) are chronically understaffed. They are jobs that most Australians have shown that they are unwilling to perform.

Their solution: We'll lock-up families of asylum seekers at the cost of hundereds of millions of dollars to the tax-payers, when many of them are willing - hell, desperate - to work in a free society, regardless of how menial the task is, just to be able to live a life better than the one in their previous country, which was probably torn apart by a war we were involved in in the first place (gotta love it when they turn back Afghani and Iraqi refugees - go freedom train, go! ). Many of them are from rural backgrounds and would probably relish the opportunity to work in the jobs Australians don't want to but that are nonetheless essential to the Australian economy, but - unfortunately for them - they also tend to have dark-coloured skin. We certainly don't want those types living in our suburbs, do we Johnny?

My solution: Let the poor bastards in. We save hundereds of millions, they add hundereds of millions to the economy. We feel good for doing the right thing, they feel good for getting a second shot at life. Where's the problem?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Good topic.
I'm in an inter-racial relationship. My gf was born in this country but her parents are from Hong Kong, they moved over here in they're 20's (30 odd years ago). My gf has been brought up in the traditional cantonese way, because thats the only way her parents knew how. But yet as soon as my gf started going to social gatherings (kindergarden, school ect) she gets sorta plunged into the English way of life and adjusts to find a middle ground between Cantonese culture and English culture.
We have been together since she was 17. However, it isn't usually at that age that serious relationships begin in Cantonese culture so i had to be a Grade A boyfriend to be accepted by her family, particually her father. My gf still carries out most of the cantonese traditions of festivals, respecting the dead at a shrine ect. She has sorta adopted certain english traditions aswell.

I dunno how much of all that was relevant

___________________

fucken love your work renegade.

however, how do you reconcile

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 1.a person in Uzbekistan (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter) should be able to live in a society that encourages free speech, denounces torture, allows freedom of religion and that also allows every other basic rights to life and liberty. If we humans - of all cultures - are connected by anything at all, it is the same basic desire for sanctity over their own physical and mental person and 2. no government - representing any culture - should be allowed to intrude upon that. If there is any universality to morality (or - indeed - the human condition), then cultures may be criticised by those external to it insofar as they infringe on the basic rights common to all people that can be inferred from this moral system.

if we all deserve these basic human rights, how can we, in good conscience, sit back and watch countries destroy each other on CNN (thanks blackhawk down) commit heinous atrocities? i think we both agree that there are universal and absolute freedoms deserved by all human beings, and surely sometimes it *is* necessary to interfere in a nation or a culture and tell them that certain activities are no longer considered ok?

it becomes a question of mathematics. when are more people going to have suffered (for example) in iraq-
20 years with or without saddam?

___________________

Last edited by pkcRAISTLIN on May-25-2005 at 12:33

quote:

Originally posted by tathi notice the back of the middle girls shirt: http://photobucket.com/albums/y67/t...current=shy.jpg Those are the types of bombs the USA secretly dropped on Laos during the Indochina war. One tonne for every man woman and child.

Hey, that's a cool shirt, I'd want one of those!

Anyway, how come you went to Laos? Sex tourism?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if we all deserve these basic human rights, how can we, in good conscience, sit back and watch countries destroy each other on CNN (thanks blackhawk down) commit heinous atrocities?

Quite correct and this is why I support, generally, multilataral, military peace-keeping forces in war-torn countries. I supported global intervention in Kosovo and - if I had been politically ware that far back - I would have supported intervention in Bosnia and Rwanda too. The difference is, though, what we were seeing in these places was active, state-sponsored genocide - not merely the restriction of individual freedoms, which is what I was talking about in my above post - and the need for intervention is a bit more urgent in extreme situations such as this. So the short answer is that we shouldn't just stand back and allow attrocities like this to take place, but that is not to say that military intervention is necessarily a desirable option anywhere human rights abuses are taking place (we'd be spread pretty thin in that case, I'd imagine) only, generally, in the most extreme cases.

quote:

i think we both agree that there are universal and absolute freedoms deserved by all human beings, and surely sometimes it *is* necessary to interfere in a nation or a culture and tell them that certain activities are no longer considered ok?

There should always be strong, global pressure on all governments across the world to adhere to universal human rights protocols, but I do not think direct, military intervention is a viable solution to this problem. Afterall, most nations in the world (including Australia) have patchy human rights records, so how do you decide which nations to invade and which nations to give a stern talking to? Should we seriously be comtemplating direct military intervention in Saudi Arabia, China or the US for their human rights abuses? If not, why not?

Besides, unilateral invasions - regardless of the threat they claim to be directed against - pose a serious moral quandry. If the globe does not believe that military intervention is the right solution for a situation such as Iraq's, what right does the US have to declare otherwise? Who made them the arbiters of all things moral? If the world is unified against their unilateral invasion, then how can the principles that the US is claiming to defend be considered universal? There are few reasons, ultimately, to risk tens of thousands of lives by going to war and I still do not believe that the invasion of Iraq - particularly without global backing - satisfied any of them.

quote:

it becomes a question of mathematics. when are more people going to have suffered (for example) in iraq- 20 years with or without saddam?

I'm not a big fan of the utilitarian approach to morality. Firstly because it's impossible to quantify something like "suffering" numerically and second of all because it can excuse acts of great evil, so long as the "greater good" is somehow increased as a result (no moral theory should ever make excuses for acts of evil).

Nonetheless, even if we do approach the Iraq war from this perspective, you've still framed the question rather narrowly. Firstly, most of Saddam's most serious acts of barbarity were committed prior to the Gulf War, when he was still on good terms with the west (specifically the acts committed during the Iran/Iraq war and his wanton massacre of Kurdish and Shiite people, who - after the Gulf War - were protected by the UN).

Secondly, measuring the death rates pre and post war is no easy matter. Countless lives will be saved by the alleviation of sanctions, but it was the nations that went to war against Iraq that were keeping those sanctions there in the first place. The war itself is the cause of at least 20,000 civilian deaths and you could probably easily double that number if you included military deaths. Mortality rates (especially in children) have increased dramatically since the conclusion of the war. There still is no stable government in place, 20% of the population has been shut out of the political process (50% if you include the lack of women in parliament) and the insurgency hasn't been weakened in two years of fighting since the end of major hostilities. Yet, they have "rights" now and will until the Shiites elect a theocratic despot when the Americans no longer care. The question is, how do you compare these two outcomes? How is it possible - especially for us as outsiders - to decide which is the better scenario for Iraqis?

Thirdly, we have to look at the opportunity cost of the invasion. It's going to cost the US $US 200 billion at least by the end of it all - just think of how else that money could have been spent. The UN, for instance, believes that two-thirds of world hunger could be eliminated if rich nations gave 0.7% of their GDP to foreign aid. 0.7% of the total GDPs of OECD nations is equal to about $US 194 billion. Which output would save more lives and secure more freedoms and rights?

Anyway, this could go on all night but I've got to go to bed now and read the Bible. Hopefully I've made my point a bit more clear.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Also when you move to another culture you must try to respect their culture, cause you are a guest of their country, but to what extent? ... Im not really sure what im trying to say, but perhaps someone will understand my muddled thoughts.

I think I understand what you're talking about : You're not allowed to bring racoons into your bedroom in Canada, right?

No, sorry for the useless post. I agree with Arbiter's post, and have nothing to add to that.