3 ms·

Is it right to help people in third world countries if it effectively means we are erasing parts or all of their culture with our own? Are we meddling?

whatshisface 9y ago
I'm not sure what's questionable about that, we "erase" things from western culture (doctors being proud of bloodstains and never sanitizing for one example) to improve its effectiveness fairly often.
- allthenews 9y ago
  I think there's an implicit assumption of cultural superiority in such case. This mirrors the pattern of imperialist "civilization" of "savages" that drove the European world to commandeer undeveloped nations over the last few hundred years at least. Sure, we believe that we have discovered certain truths through this concept that we call science, and, our ideas seem objectively correct; but does that justify our interference, and replacement of parts or all of their cultures with our own? There are parallels here to government sponsored gentrification, I think.
  - Parcissons 9y ago
    Some cultures you would protect do not have this quarells. They produce social dynamite that constantly attacks weak members of the culture or other neighbouring cultures. If it is western culture to vote dictators to power who send culture relativists into camps, is the preventing of this not "meddling"? Or are some 'cultures' just regression and barbarity hamered into laws, protected from discussion by some "god" who created them. Is discussing other peoples missery and supression by a culture who do not get to have a say due to the culture - not actually a privilege and meddling with theire basic rights as a individual? Is the collective always worthier of protection, than the individual?
  - Kalium 9y ago
    What alternatives do you find preferable, should one wish to avoid contamination and preserve the purity of indigenous cultures? Shall we not tell people that conditions are treatable or offer our knowledge, because it stems from a Western imperialist cultural context?
    - allthenews 9y ago
      I'm not sure, I don't mean to imply any wrongdoing with any certainty, only to give pause to people who blindly believe that they are helping. But, what about cultures that, for example, believe that pain is integral to the human experience? Or possibly those that believe that humans are better off having suffered some amount in their youth? These ideals are inconsistent even among the developed world[1]. I guess the question is, are we wrong in assuming that our ideals regarding medicine and necessity for treatment are universal? And if we are, are we wrong in stepping in and attempting to improve quality of life according to our first world notions? Then there's the question of whether we really have made things better in, say, much of Africa over the last few decades. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16252372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16252372
      - Kalium 9y ago
        You're absolutely right! Many cultures have different attitudes than ours. Pain is an excellent example. Are you aware that it's also a cornerstone of Western Imperialist Medicine that the patient has the right to refuse any treatment, such as palliative treatment for pain? In this way, our attitudes are not forced on other cultures. Members of other cultures are offered personal choices. Though I recognize that some regard this as a cultural imperialist imposition on cultures where personal autonomy is not valued. Personally, I think that western cultural imperialism has drastically improved lives through items such as anti-retrovirual drugs, mosquito nets, and drinking water filters. But I understand that some might choose to value traditional ways of life and ways of knowing and folk beliefs - and the attendant human suffering and deaths - over imposing our cultural that values human lives and the reduction of suffering. It's just perhaps possible that, having carefully considered this issue, and aware of the historical context wherein this is not assumed but thought about, some people may have concluded that this is an acceptable imperialist imposition. Thank you very much for your kind, caring, thoughtful ideas!
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    > I think there's an implicit assumption of cultural superiority in such case. Actually, at least in my case, it's pretty explicit. A culture that embraces science and evidence-based medicine is objectively superior - in that respect - to one that does not. I say in that respect because obviously cultures are multifaceted. It's entirely possible for, say, a culture to have a superior approach to evidence based medicine, while having an inferior approach to aged care.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
I think we need to get much more specific in our definition of "culture" if we are going to fight to protect it. If "culture" includes every single belief or practice a community might have, regardless of whether it is factually true or if it has benefits to the community, we are going to have problems. Under the broadest possible definition you would want to protect rape culture, because that is a specific culture. A more narrow definition would allow us to keep certain untrue beliefs that didn't cause harm (i.e. Santa Claus), but eliminate destructive inaccurate beliefs. (i.e. Human Sacrifice guarantees good crop yields). It might feel arrogant to presume what beliefs are harmful, and this is where we have to be careful. But if there is anything that should be clearly immune from criticism of racism or imperialism it is the pursuit of scientific approaches to medicine.
duncan_bayne 9y ago
Yes, absolutely. Consider the obvious edge case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) That's a "part ... of their culture" that definitely warranted erasure, and which was erased in part by colonial forces, who in that case were absolutely morally correct to exercise their power in doing so.
- allthenews 9y ago
  But what would you say to a nation militarily imperializing your own over some cultural practice of your own? Sure, you don't think any of your practices are abhorrent, but there are major religions who would disagree over, say, eating meat, or certain animals, conflicts over early and/or late term abortion, etc What, if anything, gives someone the right to force their subjective cultural views onto others? Are any cultural morals truly universal?

whatshisface 9y ago

I'm not sure what's questionable about that, we "erase" things from western culture (doctors being proud of bloodstains and never sanitizing for one example) to improve its effectiveness fairly often.

allthenews 9y ago
I think there's an implicit assumption of cultural superiority in such case. This mirrors the pattern of imperialist "civilization" of "savages" that drove the European world to commandeer undeveloped nations over the last few hundred years at least. Sure, we believe that we have discovered certain truths through this concept that we call science, and, our ideas seem objectively correct; but does that justify our interference, and replacement of parts or all of their cultures with our own? There are parallels here to government sponsored gentrification, I think.
- Parcissons 9y ago
  Some cultures you would protect do not have this quarells. They produce social dynamite that constantly attacks weak members of the culture or other neighbouring cultures. If it is western culture to vote dictators to power who send culture relativists into camps, is the preventing of this not "meddling"? Or are some 'cultures' just regression and barbarity hamered into laws, protected from discussion by some "god" who created them. Is discussing other peoples missery and supression by a culture who do not get to have a say due to the culture - not actually a privilege and meddling with theire basic rights as a individual? Is the collective always worthier of protection, than the individual?
- Kalium 9y ago
  What alternatives do you find preferable, should one wish to avoid contamination and preserve the purity of indigenous cultures? Shall we not tell people that conditions are treatable or offer our knowledge, because it stems from a Western imperialist cultural context?
  - allthenews 9y ago
    I'm not sure, I don't mean to imply any wrongdoing with any certainty, only to give pause to people who blindly believe that they are helping. But, what about cultures that, for example, believe that pain is integral to the human experience? Or possibly those that believe that humans are better off having suffered some amount in their youth? These ideals are inconsistent even among the developed world[1]. I guess the question is, are we wrong in assuming that our ideals regarding medicine and necessity for treatment are universal? And if we are, are we wrong in stepping in and attempting to improve quality of life according to our first world notions? Then there's the question of whether we really have made things better in, say, much of Africa over the last few decades. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16252372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16252372
    - Kalium 9y ago
      You're absolutely right! Many cultures have different attitudes than ours. Pain is an excellent example. Are you aware that it's also a cornerstone of Western Imperialist Medicine that the patient has the right to refuse any treatment, such as palliative treatment for pain? In this way, our attitudes are not forced on other cultures. Members of other cultures are offered personal choices. Though I recognize that some regard this as a cultural imperialist imposition on cultures where personal autonomy is not valued. Personally, I think that western cultural imperialism has drastically improved lives through items such as anti-retrovirual drugs, mosquito nets, and drinking water filters. But I understand that some might choose to value traditional ways of life and ways of knowing and folk beliefs - and the attendant human suffering and deaths - over imposing our cultural that values human lives and the reduction of suffering. It's just perhaps possible that, having carefully considered this issue, and aware of the historical context wherein this is not assumed but thought about, some people may have concluded that this is an acceptable imperialist imposition. Thank you very much for your kind, caring, thoughtful ideas!
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  > I think there's an implicit assumption of cultural superiority in such case. Actually, at least in my case, it's pretty explicit. A culture that embraces science and evidence-based medicine is objectively superior - in that respect - to one that does not. I say in that respect because obviously cultures are multifaceted. It's entirely possible for, say, a culture to have a superior approach to evidence based medicine, while having an inferior approach to aged care.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

I think we need to get much more specific in our definition of "culture" if we are going to fight to protect it. If "culture" includes every single belief or practice a community might have, regardless of whether it is factually true or if it has benefits to the community, we are going to have problems. Under the broadest possible definition you would want to protect rape culture, because that is a specific culture. A more narrow definition would allow us to keep certain untrue beliefs that didn't cause harm (i.e. Santa Claus), but eliminate destructive inaccurate beliefs. (i.e. Human Sacrifice guarantees good crop yields). It might feel arrogant to presume what beliefs are harmful, and this is where we have to be careful. But if there is anything that should be clearly immune from criticism of racism or imperialism it is the pursuit of scientific approaches to medicine.

duncan_bayne 9y ago

Yes, absolutely. Consider the obvious edge case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice) That's a "part ... of their culture" that definitely warranted erasure, and which was erased in part by colonial forces, who in that case were absolutely morally correct to exercise their power in doing so.

allthenews 9y ago
But what would you say to a nation militarily imperializing your own over some cultural practice of your own? Sure, you don't think any of your practices are abhorrent, but there are major religions who would disagree over, say, eating meat, or certain animals, conflicts over early and/or late term abortion, etc What, if anything, gives someone the right to force their subjective cultural views onto others? Are any cultural morals truly universal?