4 ms·

Did you read the part where I literally said "christian missionaries are well intentioned"? I guess you just read the part I didn't actually write about missio

by wdewind 17y ago

Did you read the part where I literally said "christian missionaries are well intentioned"? I guess you just read the part I didn't actually write about missionaries being unable to do good work...ANYWAY: Anthropologists and the other two are very different...anthropologists mostly don't raise social movements. In fact even having their actual presence known in the field is mostly considered a downside as it affects the way people act (longer discussion not for here). Anthropologists are studiers, primarily interested with understanding and interpreting the world for others to act on. I don't think they belong in this discussion. Marxists and Christians absolutely have a TON in common. I will agree on that. I don't blanket condemn anyone who isn't pushing their views along side with the help they give. I do have very direct experience with a wide variety of Christians (from Catholics to Greek Orthodox to fundamentalist Presbyterians) and many of them did some sort of mission work. The vast majority of it had little to do with religion, but without fail they all prayed with the people they were helping and helped work towards some greater mainstay of Christian faith in the area (usually working on building some Church, repairing some Church). Unfortunately I think missionary work is inextricably about the broader goals, and it's not as clear cut as you make it out to say you are helping someone - this is a slippery slope to cultural imperialism. I obviously don't have any issue with feeding people, and helping them rebuild after disaster (widespread like war, or personal like homelessness), but take a nation like Korea. Before Americans came in it was almost entirely Buddhist. After the Korean War the Americans came in and said "hey we'll help rebuild your nation, just let us build this Church." In many cases the first generation (those who made these deals) paid little mind to the Churches, but the second generation was completely culturally slaughtered. South Korea now has a thriving economy and is between 35 and 40% fundamentalist Christian. It is now culturally necessary to be Christian in many cases to be in the upper class (the wealthy social networks are mostly Christian). So look what the trade off there was in terms of culture for stability. Is it not possible to understand that such a thing could happen on a personal scale as well? There is no moral ambiguity about feeding someone who is starving, there absolutely is when you package that food with your beliefs. You force them to compromise themselves, and I think that's neither useful nor appropriate.

jacobolus 17y ago
First, I think I misread your original comment. You’re right that missionaries proselytize, by definition. I guess what I objected to was “would you like jesus in your life? no? what about now?” which is not how any of the missionaries I know interact with people. ------- In response to this second comment: In the places I have any experience with full of desperately poor people, the outsiders who decide to settle down, whatever their official institutional ideology, mostly care about helping people, at an individual level. > this is a slippery slope to cultural imperialism. I’m somewhat skeptical about this. In the places with the most severe cultural imperialism – for instance, Latin America – said imperialism was done in the name of god and the king, but was at root much more about material advantage and personal self-interest (read: theft) than salvation, the latter being mostly a convenient rationalization. Today, pretty much everywhere in the world has been under the “cultural imperialist” influence of the west, linked by a globalized economic system. Moreover, I think you oversimplify in suggesting that Christianization is just a mechanism for hegemony. I don’t know much about Korean culture or religious diversity, but from your description it sounds to me like Korean elites seized on Christianity and bent it to their own ends, quite independently of the missionaries who had brought it there. At the same time, Korea was industrializing and urbanizing full speed, building an export-led factory economy. We could speculate about what the power structure would be like in Korea if the population had remained entirely Buddhist, but it’s not as if feudalism would have survived, and I don’t think the outcome can be blamed on Christian missionaries without likewise indicting centuries of Western technological advances, foreign bankers, American consumers, and the rest of the prevailing world economic system. (And Koreans of all stripes, too.) In short, it’s complicated. ----- For what it’s worth, I also find packaging aid to desperately poor people with religious ideology to be distasteful/awkward and agree that it is potentially abusive.
- wdewind 17y ago
  Christianity IS a mechanism for hegemony among many other things (just like technology is a mechanism for hegemony and other things etc.). I think we generally agree: people will be people and good and bad will be done with or without religion, which was really just an example (so Korea was an example of an example? ok time to end it :P). "For what it’s worth, I also find packaging aid to desperately poor people with religious ideology to be distasteful/awkward and agree that it is potentially abusive." This was my main point and we agree :)

by wdewind 17y ago

jacobolus 17y ago

First, I think I misread your original comment. You’re right that missionaries proselytize, by definition. I guess what I objected to was “would you like jesus in your life? no? what about now?” which is not how any of the missionaries I know interact with people. ------- In response to this second comment: In the places I have any experience with full of desperately poor people, the outsiders who decide to settle down, whatever their official institutional ideology, mostly care about helping people, at an individual level. > this is a slippery slope to cultural imperialism. I’m somewhat skeptical about this. In the places with the most severe cultural imperialism – for instance, Latin America – said imperialism was done in the name of god and the king, but was at root much more about material advantage and personal self-interest (read: theft) than salvation, the latter being mostly a convenient rationalization. Today, pretty much everywhere in the world has been under the “cultural imperialist” influence of the west, linked by a globalized economic system. Moreover, I think you oversimplify in suggesting that Christianization is just a mechanism for hegemony. I don’t know much about Korean culture or religious diversity, but from your description it sounds to me like Korean elites seized on Christianity and bent it to their own ends, quite independently of the missionaries who had brought it there. At the same time, Korea was industrializing and urbanizing full speed, building an export-led factory economy. We could speculate about what the power structure would be like in Korea if the population had remained entirely Buddhist, but it’s not as if feudalism would have survived, and I don’t think the outcome can be blamed on Christian missionaries without likewise indicting centuries of Western technological advances, foreign bankers, American consumers, and the rest of the prevailing world economic system. (And Koreans of all stripes, too.) In short, it’s complicated. ----- For what it’s worth, I also find packaging aid to desperately poor people with religious ideology to be distasteful/awkward and agree that it is potentially abusive.

wdewind 17y ago
Christianity IS a mechanism for hegemony among many other things (just like technology is a mechanism for hegemony and other things etc.). I think we generally agree: people will be people and good and bad will be done with or without religion, which was really just an example (so Korea was an example of an example? ok time to end it :P). "For what it’s worth, I also find packaging aid to desperately poor people with religious ideology to be distasteful/awkward and agree that it is potentially abusive." This was my main point and we agree :)