Ethnocentricity vs Cultural Relativism

Im so tired of everyone making excuses for other cultures. On 9/11 I went to school and witnessed a horror beyond my imagination, I saw everyone bond together and cry togther and feel anger, and I felt terrified. But you know what I saw on 9/12 I saw people have to boldness to justify the attacks. "oh its just thier culture" "It's the U.S' fault for occupying Saudi Arabia" "The U.S brought this upon themselves" That is what's called Cultural Relativism, and sure a little bit of it is a good thing, but to go as far as to justify flying planes into skyscrapers is totally ridiculous. So tell me, where do we draw the line and stop looking through thier eyes, when is it ok to be Ethnocentric, to care only about yourself.

 

I've never heard anyone use the excuse, "it's just their culture." Do people really use such ignorant racist language in their daily lives? ?

I have no idea what ethnocentricity has to do with anything, as we are a country made up of hundereds of different ethnicitys.

The U.S. for too long, has assumed that terrorism was a problem that happens only "someplace else" and that no one would ever dare hit us like they did on 9-11. Our foreign policies help to make us more enemies around the world, and now a war in the middle east will surely convince most Arabs that we are their "friends". [eye-roll] Until the U.S. truly becomes part of the global community and stops acting like the world-police, we will help to fuel the hatred of zealots around the globe IMO.

 

If you want to stop it, you have to look at it through their eyes. You can't stop something unless you understand a motive.

Do you have to mitigate everything that's done because it's their culture? Absolutely not. I'm a left-winger (and we're often accused of being too free and easy with accepting even the worst bits of other cultures), but I don't see why we should accept Islamic fundamentalism any more than we accept Christian fundamentalism, or white terrorism any more than Asian terrorism. If we find something disagreeable about another culture (like their dress, manner of speaking of interacting), we should keep it to ourselves; bit if it threatens us, then we have a duty to take exception to it.

- TSB.

 

Please do not pervert the anthropologial terms "ethnocentric" and "cultural relativism" any more than they already have. What you are speaking of has little to do with either as they were meant to be used in the field of anthropology.

I hate to be a "vocabulary nazi" but as an anthropology person, it just irks the hell out of me. I think a more appropriate title would be "Political Corectness post 9/11" because I think you are addressing issues dealing with the PC movement.

 

I concur. Would a mod care to change that, if it's alright with the topic author?

- TSB.

 

Ok, yeah that would be a better name for the topic. I'm just voicing my concerns because Im very tolerant of other cultures, my question is just when do we draw the line. For example:

A class of girls in Saudi Arabia was caught in a building when their school erupted in flames, as they got out of the school they were told to turn around and go back into the burning building because they had forgotten their veils. 12 of these girls died.

So what do u we say to this, do we say "alright this is ok because that is how their culture looks at women, it is their way" or do we say, that is a serious violation of human rights. That is what this topic is about, not 9/11.

 

That isn't their culture.

No good Muslim would ever demand that kind of thing. I live in an area with a high proportion of Muslims, and I've never spoken to one who would even dream that as being acceptable. It is certainly not condoned by the majority of the culture in any country right now, and MOST certainly not condoned in the Qur'ran. So that has nothing to do with "culture," and everything to do with a particularly extremist group of people.

- TSB.

 

There is almost no point in discussing this, if anyone has a problem with PC aka Social Marxism. The Thought Police will make sure you regret it

 

Social Marxism.

I can feel the ignorance from here. Marxism and Political Correctness have nothing in common whatsoever. Marxism is a philosophical and economic theory that existed before the term 'political correctness' was even coined. It also has nothing to do with the thought police - that was a creation by George Orwell: a Marxist, about the methods of Stalin and the dangers of totalitarianism.

The theories founder, Karl Marx, was extremely un-politically correct. He was, although a brilliant and loving man (towards his family at least ), loud, arrogant and hostile.

Don't equate some elements of the left-wing with the entirity of the left-wing, and certainly not Marxism. It doesn't make you look humorous or witty, merely foolish.

- Scarlet.

PS: I must apologise if that seemed overly-scurrilous, but I've had enough of [unjustified] Marx-bashing to last me a life time.

 

Im very tolerant of other cultures

That in itself is a very unPC comment. You shouldn't tolerate other people's cultures - you should understand and embrace them ! Spend some time learning about their ideas and beliefs.

In a similar way you might tolerate a stomach ulcer.

A class of girls in Saudi Arabia was caught in a building when their school erupted in flames, as they got out of the school they were told to turn around and go back into the burning building because they had forgotten their veils. 12 of these girls died.

can you post proof on that one please - it sounds like nonsense to me. Sounds like one of those emails that does the rounds every once in a while - "lets send a mass email to the UN because this is outrageous"

Malcolm

 

Foolish?

Where is your proof it has nothing to do with Marxism? I wonder...perhaps it has a connection to a fanciful history where one side "the oppressors" and the other side "the victims" are the only two groups. The "victim" groups are pretty much pandered too to make up for discrimination real or imagined to the detriment of the "oppressor" groups. How is this radically different from Marx's theory? Simply transfer "oppressors" to "evil capitalists" and transfer "victims" to the "proletariat", and you will see what I mean. [sarcasm]It is time for a thought revolution, comrade.[/sarcasm]

PC came from the Marxist Monoliths I would like to call universities a few decades ago. Do not even attempt to deny that Marxism is still very influential at universities and favored by many of the professors. You could deny that there was a direct connection between Marxism and PC, but you cannot deny PC was at the very least heavily influenced by Marxist thought.

It really has nothing to do with "which came first"; what this has to do with is an adaptation of the theory. One does not need a rubber stamp from Marx himself.

I am well aware that George Orwell originated the term; however, that does not mean the concept is exclusive to 1984. There are certain types of thoughts that are quickly becoming crimes in and of themselves. "Hate crimes", anyone?

 

can you post proof on that one please - it sounds like nonsense to me.

It's not nonsense; this actually occurred in March of this year.

And TSB, to say it is not part of a culture where honor killings, beheadings (Saudi Arabia), and stonings of pregnant women (Nigeria) are condoned or even carried out by the government of various countries, is to willfully overlook the facts. Those who prevented the girls from leaving school were from the "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" of Saudi Arabia.

I think this is what the author of this thread is referring to to an extent: where is Western outrage at such events? Why does it so often appear to be excused as simply part of a culture that we have no right to judge, or even evaluate?

 

Foolish?

That's right.

Don't even try to tick me off.

*groans and rolls his eyes*

Where is your proof it has nothing to do with Marxism?

All Marx's published works, including letters, treatises and publications. It has nothing in them that encourages political correctness. It's impossible to provide proof, as Marxist work doesn't even touch on the subject. You're dogmatic and brainwashed, and perhaps the worst example of it I've seen on this board thus far. Redeem yourself and rescind your ignorance.

I wonder...perhaps it has a connection to a fanciful history

History is not 'fanciful.' It is fact.

where one side "the oppressors" and the other side "the victims" are the only two groups.

What the HELL are you talking about? This has nothing to do with Marxism. It has nothing to do with political correctness. Please attempt to relate your arguments to the issue at hand.

The "victim" groups are pretty much pandered too

Ignoring your atrocious spelling, it's called 'liberal democracy.' I doubt you are familiar with the term. It is something which a lot of Western nations follow. It has to do with following the wishes of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minorities, even if the majority should not agree with it.

to make up for discrimination real or imagined to the detriment of the "oppressor" groups.

You seem to have a poor grip on what you're talking about, POLUNIS. Please retract, rescind and apologise, and save yourself from having to drag this on.

How is this radically different from Marx's theory?

Marx's theory was dialectic materialism. He believed, like Hegel, that everything had a thesis and antithesis, two opposing forces, which formed the synthesis. He argued this was present in all historical situations, particularly in class struggle. It has no relevance to political correctness.

Simply transfer "oppressors" to "evil capitalists" and transfer "victims" to the "proletariat",

This is stupidity. You're making up some crap, and translating it into Marxism. Again, retract, rescind and apologise.

[sarcasm]It is time for a thought revolution, comrade.[/sarcasm]

You veritably drip with intelligence and articulation.

PC came from the Marxist Monoliths I would like to call universities a few decades ago.

Here we go. Not only are you are ignorant and foolish, you also seem to be an anti-intellectual. Universities were, and are, bastions of Marxist thoughts because Marxism is a complex and difficult theory that requires that kind of intellect to comprehend. Nowadays, it's more accessible; as several people on this board, not you, have proven.

Do not even attempt to deny that Marxism is still very influential at universities and favored by many of the professors.

No, I am not denying that.

You could deny that there was a direct connection between Marxism and PC,

Yes, I can, and I am. Marxist theory has nothing to do with political correctness.

but you cannot deny PC was at the very least heavily influenced by Marxist thought.

Yes, I can! Marxists are left-wingers. Left-wingers also happen to be more apt to politically correct htought. That is the only connection. Marxism in and of itself has no connection to political correctness.

It really has nothing to do with "which came first";

Well, yes it does. How can you say that Marx and Marxism is/was politically correct, when he/it was around/created, politically correctness was not even a term in use?

what this has to do with is an adaptation of the theory.

The theory of Marxism hasn't been adapted, except by Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg. I have never read any explicitly politically correct sentiments in their works.

One does not need a rubber stamp from Marx himself.

If you want to call it Marxism, YES YOU DO.

- Scarlet.

 

And TSB, to say it is not part of a culture where honor killings, beheadings (Saudi Arabia), and stonings of pregnant women (Nigeria) are condoned or even carried out by the government of various countries, is to willfully overlook the facts.

I define culture as a consensus on a set of values and norms. If there is that consensus, then you are correct, and I rescind and apologise.

Those who prevented the girls from leaving school were from the "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" of Saudi Arabia.

Can your source this? I don't find it hard to believe, but for the sake of fairness..

Why does it so often appear to be excused as simply part of a culture that we have no right to judge, or even evaluate?

Because it's a difficult subject.

I'd like to apologise for allowing myself to get off-topic in Marxist discussion with POLUNIS. With his blessing, I'd like to move it to private messages in order to ensure the continued relativity of this topic. POLUNIS, if you wish to continue, please PM me.

- Scarlet.

 

irishjedi is correct, Saudi Arabia does maintain such a ministry. It is also governed under strict shari'a (Islamic law) and has outlawed Christianity. Many moderates (ie half the population) are opposed to the clerics and the control they exert over the House of Saud.

I do believe in cultural relativism and that the West is universalist in it's approach to other "civilisations" which is why there is contention. Has anyone read the Clash of Civilisations by Samuel P Huntington, or is at least familiar with the premise? It's fairly relative here, but The1, I don't think anyone's going to argue that Islamic culture is responsible for the jihad (which DOES NOT mean "holy war" but "effort" or "struggle") beliefs of wahabism. Remember, in the Qu'ran, Muslims are instructed to respect all people of the Book.


POLUNIS, how much of Marx's works have you read? Any? I've read it as coursework, heck, I've tutored a theory course with a heavy Marx component. And I can't remember anything in Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, etc etc on political correctness. Hmmmm. Which is odd, since Marx died in the 1880's, and PC thought is a new phenomenon, I was sure you'd be correct in your Social Marxism comment! You may want to try some online resources for Marx's writings, like Marxists.org. I can't think of too many others and I know you wouldn't pick up an abridged Marx reader. Heck, and help me out if I'm wrong here TSB, I don't even think J.S. Mill, the father of modern liberalism, advocated political correctness?
E_S

 

You're right, E_S (as you often are ). That I know of, John Stuart Mill was never an advocate of political correctness.

In fact, quite the opposite. In his theory of consequentialist utilitarianism, he states that even if something causes offence, that is not necessarily harmful.

Of course, I'm not much of a Mill scholar, so I could be wrong.

- Scarlet.

 

Ender_Sai, did you even pay any attention to the fact that I admitted PC was not originated by Marx himself? That does not mean, however, that people cannot adapt a theory for their own purposes. Have you ever heard of Social Darwinism? What had that to do with origin of species? Very little, but some robber barons adopted the philosophy "survival of the fittest" to be a mandate to eliminate competition heavy-handedly. There are, of course, other applications of Social Darwinism, but this is the one most people reflect upon.

Did you even read my post?

 

"I think this is what the author of this thread is referring to to an extent: where is Western outrage at such events? Why does it so often appear to be excused as simply part of a culture that we have no right to judge, or even evaluate? "

Thats exactly what Im trying to do.

 

"A class of girls in Saudi Arabia was caught in a building when their school erupted in flames, as they got out of the school they were told to turn around and go back into the burning building because they had forgotten their veils. 12 of these girls died."

saudi arabia encourages, supports, and funds the practices of the most extreme form of fundamentalist muslim. they also oppress and restrict the right of their women.

funny thing though... iraq (our "enemy") believes that these extreme fundamentalist muslim groups are "evil." the women in iraq are more liberated and have more rights than the women of our arab "allies." iraqi women don't even cover themselves with veils or burqas. something to think about when we go in and bomb this country.

cheers!

 

Ender_Sai, did you even pay any attention to the fact that I admitted PC was not originated by Marx himself?

This was addressed in the PM I just sent you, POLUNIS

- Scarlet.

 

Ewok, in terms of state practise, the Taliban were far worse. Iran is actually pretty good with women now as well! But these only reaffirm, IMHO, cultural relativism.

E_S

 

If you want to stop it, you have to look at it through their eyes. You can't stop something unless you understand a motive.

Actually, that's not true on a scale large or small.

Even now, few of us even believe we know why Adolph Hitler became such an evil little man. Yet we didn't wait to understand his motives to defeat his armies; and we didn't have to.

And we don't understand every motive behind serial murders: but we can still catch them and lock them away until they drop dead.