5 ms·

This is incoherent, unless you equate culture with nation. Nationalism says that people in your nation are special, that, in effect, rights pertain to them tha

by Vivtek 13y ago

This is incoherent, unless you equate culture with nation. Nationalism says that people in your nation are special, that, in effect, rights pertain to them that are not granted to other nations - it is incompatible with morality. On your Hopi/Swedish point, the question here is whether the Hopi child deserves government by the same standards and access to the same opportunities as the Swede. Yes. Yes, she does.

dnautics 13y ago
it's an oppressive point that every human requires the same sort of government to achieve maximal justice. It is, the very argument that the US has proffered to engage in interventionary invasions of the Maghreb - "we're bringing them democracy".
- vidarh 13y ago
  He did not say that they require the same sort of government. He said they deserve a government of the same standards and access to the same opportunities. That's vastly different.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    I brought up the Hopi very specifically because of their religious practices.[1] Children among the Hopi are raised to believe literally that the Kacina dancers are literally gods from somewhere else who have come to work miracles on the village. Once every 3 years, the children ages 7-9 are gathered together for induction into the religious community of the village. This induction involves ritual beating and betrayal (showing that what they have been taught all their lives is a carefully constructed lie), and thus induction into the religious community is also a somewhat temporary and violent initiation into atheism as well. However this tearing down of belief in relatively visceral and violent ways is considered necessary for passing on the Hopi understanding of religion. The problem I have with this sort of international humanism is that it leaves no room for cultures like that. I mean Think of the Children!!! They are being abused!!! and so we go out of our way to impose our own culture on everyone else in the way of proving that nationalism and ethnocentricity must go. [1] see Gill, Sam D. 1996 "Disenchantment: A Religious Abduction." In Readings in Ritual Studies, edited by Ronald L. Grimes, 230-39. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
    - Joeri 13y ago
      If there was a tribe who considered cannibalism and ritual sacrifice an essential part of their religion, would you also defend that practice? There is a line which cannot be crossed, we're just debating where it should be drawn. I don't think religion has any bearing on whether something is acceptable or not. The Hopi may beat their children for religious reasons, but plenty of parents beat their children for non-religious reasons. What matters in the question of whether this should be allowed is not the reason why they do it, but the consequences of doing it. Laws regulate actions based on their consequences, not based on their motive.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        Religion is an integral part of culture though, so an attack on religious practice is an attack on cultural integrity. This is why I support the Supreme Court's decision in Yoder v. Wisconsin, holding that the Amish in the US have a right to educate their children to Amish religious standards instead of the standards the state sets, even if, as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion, this means someone raised as an Amish will never be able to be an astronaught. The fundamental question is how much deference we give to culture generally and who is making these decisions. Do we want white folks telling Hopi they can't have what remains of their culture anymore? Do we want folks from China and India telling white Americans what should constitute free speech? My view is that if we don't allow for local culture and decisions about such things to be made at the local and cultural level then we lose our basic humanity. For cannibalism or ritual sacrifice, if it is internal to a population group, I think that this is for that group to work out. If it is between groups, well then that's cause for war..... A lot of things in culture are really structurally variable. For example is it a human right to be able to choose not to ever have children? Does this mean that cultures that expect retirees to be cared for by their children are violating human rights and every culture must have something like social security? Now, if you agree that's a cultural issue, then something like same-sex marriage also must be a cultural issue too. (Religion, in my view, isn't about God. Religion is about community.)
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      Actually, I suspect Americans in general should be subjected to this ritual. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  No, in fact, that's not at all what I said. I said every human should be accorded the same rights and opportunities, which my government shamefully betrays every day. If anything, the worst crime of which history will accuse America is of taking excellent stated ideals and subverting them for the purpose of oppression - thus discrediting the original excellent ideals.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    but I don't think that America really subverts them for the purpose of oppression. The US is perfectly capable of oppressing without appealing to those ideas (indian wars; japanese internment). I actually think the US means it (and thinks that it can) deliver democracy without being oppressive. Hanlon's razor. But the difference here is, in this case it is impossible to not be incompetent. Just as it is impossible to deliver what you intend for the world without being incompetent in the sense of being 'non-oppressive'.
einhverfr 13y ago
> Nationalism says that people in your nation are special... But isn't everyone special in this regard? > On your Hopi/Swedish point, the question here is whether the Hopi child deserves government by the same standards and access to the same opportunities as the Swede. So no more of the ritual beating as a part of rites of passage into the religious community of the village for Hopis? We don't even have to ask why they do it? We can just say "it's abhorrant and not up to our standards" and that settles it?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Vivtek 13y ago
  Am I not special in this regard? Shouldn't I simply get whatever I want? I'm more than five years old, so I accept that I'm not as special as I once thought. Nationalism is similarly infantile. And you're not responding to my argument about the Hopi, just repeating your own; I didn't even address your point about them at all. Edit: Whoops, that was sloppy of me. In fact I didn't address your Hopi/Swede point because I hadn't seen it yet. I'm not sure what I think about it (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I'm not prepared to treat that as I would child abuse in larger society, though.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    > (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I think there is very deep wisdom in the Hopi practice, and it is part of a process that leads to very nuanced views on religion among the Hopi, remember that disbelieving is the prerequisite for participation. The overall point though is to value one's own culture and heritage, and accept that we humans are cultural animals, that without culture we aren't even human, and then expect others to do the same. It's one thing for Americans to sympathize with the victims of the Boston Bombings more than they sympathize with the victims of drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan. I think that's fine. Nationality matters. However, I also think it is wrong to assume that Yemenis and Pakistanis should not also sympathize with their countrymen and women who are killed in such attacks more than they sympathize with Americans killed in 9/11, the Boston Bombings, etc. I also think that if we accept and understand that we can build a better future. That's what I mean by everyone being special in that regard, and one not so tied to the wrong sorts of nationalism.

by Vivtek 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

it's an oppressive point that every human requires the same sort of government to achieve maximal justice. It is, the very argument that the US has proffered to engage in interventionary invasions of the Maghreb - "we're bringing them democracy".

vidarh 13y ago
He did not say that they require the same sort of government. He said they deserve a government of the same standards and access to the same opportunities. That's vastly different.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  I brought up the Hopi very specifically because of their religious practices.[1] Children among the Hopi are raised to believe literally that the Kacina dancers are literally gods from somewhere else who have come to work miracles on the village. Once every 3 years, the children ages 7-9 are gathered together for induction into the religious community of the village. This induction involves ritual beating and betrayal (showing that what they have been taught all their lives is a carefully constructed lie), and thus induction into the religious community is also a somewhat temporary and violent initiation into atheism as well. However this tearing down of belief in relatively visceral and violent ways is considered necessary for passing on the Hopi understanding of religion. The problem I have with this sort of international humanism is that it leaves no room for cultures like that. I mean Think of the Children!!! They are being abused!!! and so we go out of our way to impose our own culture on everyone else in the way of proving that nationalism and ethnocentricity must go. [1] see Gill, Sam D. 1996 "Disenchantment: A Religious Abduction." In Readings in Ritual Studies, edited by Ronald L. Grimes, 230-39. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
  - Joeri 13y ago
    If there was a tribe who considered cannibalism and ritual sacrifice an essential part of their religion, would you also defend that practice? There is a line which cannot be crossed, we're just debating where it should be drawn. I don't think religion has any bearing on whether something is acceptable or not. The Hopi may beat their children for religious reasons, but plenty of parents beat their children for non-religious reasons. What matters in the question of whether this should be allowed is not the reason why they do it, but the consequences of doing it. Laws regulate actions based on their consequences, not based on their motive.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Religion is an integral part of culture though, so an attack on religious practice is an attack on cultural integrity. This is why I support the Supreme Court's decision in Yoder v. Wisconsin, holding that the Amish in the US have a right to educate their children to Amish religious standards instead of the standards the state sets, even if, as Justice Douglas noted in his concurring opinion, this means someone raised as an Amish will never be able to be an astronaught. The fundamental question is how much deference we give to culture generally and who is making these decisions. Do we want white folks telling Hopi they can't have what remains of their culture anymore? Do we want folks from China and India telling white Americans what should constitute free speech? My view is that if we don't allow for local culture and decisions about such things to be made at the local and cultural level then we lose our basic humanity. For cannibalism or ritual sacrifice, if it is internal to a population group, I think that this is for that group to work out. If it is between groups, well then that's cause for war..... A lot of things in culture are really structurally variable. For example is it a human right to be able to choose not to ever have children? Does this mean that cultures that expect retirees to be cared for by their children are violating human rights and every culture must have something like social security? Now, if you agree that's a cultural issue, then something like same-sex marriage also must be a cultural issue too. (Religion, in my view, isn't about God. Religion is about community.)
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Actually, I suspect Americans in general should be subjected to this ritual. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Vivtek 13y ago
No, in fact, that's not at all what I said. I said every human should be accorded the same rights and opportunities, which my government shamefully betrays every day. If anything, the worst crime of which history will accuse America is of taking excellent stated ideals and subverting them for the purpose of oppression - thus discrediting the original excellent ideals.
- dnautics 13y ago
  but I don't think that America really subverts them for the purpose of oppression. The US is perfectly capable of oppressing without appealing to those ideas (indian wars; japanese internment). I actually think the US means it (and thinks that it can) deliver democracy without being oppressive. Hanlon's razor. But the difference here is, in this case it is impossible to not be incompetent. Just as it is impossible to deliver what you intend for the world without being incompetent in the sense of being 'non-oppressive'.

einhverfr 13y ago

> Nationalism says that people in your nation are special... But isn't everyone special in this regard? > On your Hopi/Swedish point, the question here is whether the Hopi child deserves government by the same standards and access to the same opportunities as the Swede. So no more of the ritual beating as a part of rites of passage into the religious community of the village for Hopis? We don't even have to ask why they do it? We can just say "it's abhorrant and not up to our standards" and that settles it?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Vivtek 13y ago
Am I not special in this regard? Shouldn't I simply get whatever I want? I'm more than five years old, so I accept that I'm not as special as I once thought. Nationalism is similarly infantile. And you're not responding to my argument about the Hopi, just repeating your own; I didn't even address your point about them at all. Edit: Whoops, that was sloppy of me. In fact I didn't address your Hopi/Swede point because I hadn't seen it yet. I'm not sure what I think about it (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I'm not prepared to treat that as I would child abuse in larger society, though.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  > (except that in principle it's a good idea to disabuse kids of their childhood beliefs, if not by beating them). I think there is very deep wisdom in the Hopi practice, and it is part of a process that leads to very nuanced views on religion among the Hopi, remember that disbelieving is the prerequisite for participation. The overall point though is to value one's own culture and heritage, and accept that we humans are cultural animals, that without culture we aren't even human, and then expect others to do the same. It's one thing for Americans to sympathize with the victims of the Boston Bombings more than they sympathize with the victims of drone strikes in Yemen or Pakistan. I think that's fine. Nationality matters. However, I also think it is wrong to assume that Yemenis and Pakistanis should not also sympathize with their countrymen and women who are killed in such attacks more than they sympathize with Americans killed in 9/11, the Boston Bombings, etc. I also think that if we accept and understand that we can build a better future. That's what I mean by everyone being special in that regard, and one not so tied to the wrong sorts of nationalism.