4 ms·

Where do you draw the line? Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse (and many may be s

Where do you draw the line? Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse (and many may be seen by modern standards as sex abuse)? Or do we leave the most deeply cultural concepts of society-- how we relate to our bodies, the form and function of marriage, and how we relate to growing up or dying to the members of that culture?

potatolicious 14y ago
> "Where do you draw the line?" I addressed this part - consent. The most objectionable part of arranged marriages are the ones where one side is clearly non-consenting. There is still a dramatic misunderstanding of arranged marriages in the West because many fail to appreciate that in many cultures, everyone involved is consenting and uncoerced. > "Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse" Only if the children are non-consenting. It is not about how we feel about whatever tradition, it's all about whether or not everyone has the freedom to choose. This is not enforcing the Western ideal of marriage onto others - this is giving the persecuted and the non-consenting a legal recourse to choose as they will. Once this framework is in place, cultures will naturally evolve around it - in the same way that the legal protection of black civil rights has over time dramatically altered our collective cultural perception. Similarly, this applies to, say, women's dress in traditional Islamic nations. There are many people in the US who would seek to ban the hijab, or other clothing that is perceived to be harmful to women's rights. That is cultural imperialism, but that's not what this is about. The moderate, correct stance is to make sure that women who choose to opt out of traditional garb have the full protection of the law. With this foundation in place culture will evolve as it will - and maybe everyone will keep wearing the hijab, who knows. It is possible to enforce freedom and equality without moral judgment on specific aspects of culture.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Consent is not meaningful in the context of a mandatory rite like the Sambian example. You either undergo the rite or you leave the society. There are no other options. So you are for imposing consent requirements on indigenous rite of passage ceremonies... I am sorry but I must say that I am both saddened and sickened by that sort of response.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "I am sorry but I must say that I am both saddened and sickened by that sort of response." And likewise, I am saddened and sickened by yours. The fact that a tradition has existed since time immemorial does not in and of itself make it worthy of preservation, and it does not give it free reign to terrorize and persecute anyone it touches. The weak deserve protection and freedom. No one should be forced to participate in a cultural rite against their will. If you believe that societies ought to have the legal right to force people to participate in its rituals and traditions against their will, then yes, I am indeed sickened. If, given the legal framework to choose freely, people still choose to participate in whatever, then that's fine - it wouldn't matter one iota whether or not what I, or anyone else, thinks of the tradition. Next up: we shouldn't be trying to get rid of malaria, because it evolved naturally, has existed since the dawn of mankind, and it just wouldn't be right to mess with that.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      But who is the weak? Put another way, do the Hopi need protection from the White folks more than the Hopi children need protection from their parents?
      - potatolicious 14y ago
        > "But who is the weak?" This question is not really that insightful. The weak is the one who is being denied the legal ability to choose, and has little to no recourse about it. > "Put another way, do the Hopi need protection from the White folks more than the Hopi children need protection from their parents?" False dichotomy. The Hopi children need protection from both. They need to be protected from the "White folks" who actively seek to eliminate their culture and assimilate them. They also need protection from their own culture, where it may choose to persecute them for deviating from cultural norms. It's not an all or nothing deal - the formalization of legal protection for individuals need not destroy an entire culture, nor does the influence of a larger, more powerful culture necessarily entail bad things. We do not need to overwrite "Hopi" with "modern American", nor do we need to accept persecution derived from culture and tradition, wherever it exists.

potatolicious 14y ago

> "Where do you draw the line?" I addressed this part - consent. The most objectionable part of arranged marriages are the ones where one side is clearly non-consenting. There is still a dramatic misunderstanding of arranged marriages in the West because many fail to appreciate that in many cultures, everyone involved is consenting and uncoerced. > "Should we eliminate indigenous cultures because their coming of age ceremonies are barbaric forms of child abuse" Only if the children are non-consenting. It is not about how we feel about whatever tradition, it's all about whether or not everyone has the freedom to choose. This is not enforcing the Western ideal of marriage onto others - this is giving the persecuted and the non-consenting a legal recourse to choose as they will. Once this framework is in place, cultures will naturally evolve around it - in the same way that the legal protection of black civil rights has over time dramatically altered our collective cultural perception. Similarly, this applies to, say, women's dress in traditional Islamic nations. There are many people in the US who would seek to ban the hijab, or other clothing that is perceived to be harmful to women's rights. That is cultural imperialism, but that's not what this is about. The moderate, correct stance is to make sure that women who choose to opt out of traditional garb have the full protection of the law. With this foundation in place culture will evolve as it will - and maybe everyone will keep wearing the hijab, who knows. It is possible to enforce freedom and equality without moral judgment on specific aspects of culture.

einhverfr 14y ago
Consent is not meaningful in the context of a mandatory rite like the Sambian example. You either undergo the rite or you leave the society. There are no other options. So you are for imposing consent requirements on indigenous rite of passage ceremonies... I am sorry but I must say that I am both saddened and sickened by that sort of response.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "I am sorry but I must say that I am both saddened and sickened by that sort of response." And likewise, I am saddened and sickened by yours. The fact that a tradition has existed since time immemorial does not in and of itself make it worthy of preservation, and it does not give it free reign to terrorize and persecute anyone it touches. The weak deserve protection and freedom. No one should be forced to participate in a cultural rite against their will. If you believe that societies ought to have the legal right to force people to participate in its rituals and traditions against their will, then yes, I am indeed sickened. If, given the legal framework to choose freely, people still choose to participate in whatever, then that's fine - it wouldn't matter one iota whether or not what I, or anyone else, thinks of the tradition. Next up: we shouldn't be trying to get rid of malaria, because it evolved naturally, has existed since the dawn of mankind, and it just wouldn't be right to mess with that.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    But who is the weak? Put another way, do the Hopi need protection from the White folks more than the Hopi children need protection from their parents?
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      > "But who is the weak?" This question is not really that insightful. The weak is the one who is being denied the legal ability to choose, and has little to no recourse about it. > "Put another way, do the Hopi need protection from the White folks more than the Hopi children need protection from their parents?" False dichotomy. The Hopi children need protection from both. They need to be protected from the "White folks" who actively seek to eliminate their culture and assimilate them. They also need protection from their own culture, where it may choose to persecute them for deviating from cultural norms. It's not an all or nothing deal - the formalization of legal protection for individuals need not destroy an entire culture, nor does the influence of a larger, more powerful culture necessarily entail bad things. We do not need to overwrite "Hopi" with "modern American", nor do we need to accept persecution derived from culture and tradition, wherever it exists.