A clash between social, racial, economic beliefs?
03 Apr 2011, 5:46 pm
hill-o-beans wrote:
I've been reading some French news and human rights paper and it seems to me something I've thought about for a while. Some of the countries which are most progressive and good on social issues like gender equality, gay rights, etc are the most cruel to their immigrants. And often they use the backward/conservative social beliefs of the immigrants as an excuse to bash them. For instance france seems to often attack the middle eastern people in the name of secularism/feminism, banning veils etc. And people like Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen, who are secular, seem to be for human rights, feminism etc, but are pro war and anti Muslim, anti Catholic, very harsh on religious people.
There seem to be a lot of commentators in UK papers at the moment who are very socially left wing but anti-immigrant and use those social issues to bash the immigrants on their conservative beliefs. Also, there is a public clash between a famous pro gay politician and an anti racist politician, which made me feel down listening to it, because I thought, can't you support both causes, not have to choose one or the other.
There have been other debates in the past like people saying left-wing people shouldn't have supported Cuba because they mistreated gay people or China for various lack of human rights. But those countries were being drained by the USA and exploited like many countries. there seems a lot of countries where they are treated badly and exploited by capitalism, but the anti-capitalist government who would give more resources to the people is bad and cruel in some other way, and people here have to compromise one way or the other deciding who to support.
Also it seems to me sometimes that when some foreign people become rich and westernised, in places like Israel and Dubai their "human rights" beliefs improve and they are more feminist, pro-gay etc, but they are also more cruel and uncaring to poor people. Whereas people with "bad" beliefs in some ways can often be very generous in other ways, for example, Christians I have known who were very fundamentalist and "socially backward" in a lot of issues but very generous in charity work and helping people. Well what do you think, is there any sense to it. I have been in evangelical/missionary churches all my life and they have a very different view of the world, I feel a bit confused about how to see things at present.
There seem to be a lot of commentators in UK papers at the moment who are very socially left wing but anti-immigrant and use those social issues to bash the immigrants on their conservative beliefs. Also, there is a public clash between a famous pro gay politician and an anti racist politician, which made me feel down listening to it, because I thought, can't you support both causes, not have to choose one or the other.
There have been other debates in the past like people saying left-wing people shouldn't have supported Cuba because they mistreated gay people or China for various lack of human rights. But those countries were being drained by the USA and exploited like many countries. there seems a lot of countries where they are treated badly and exploited by capitalism, but the anti-capitalist government who would give more resources to the people is bad and cruel in some other way, and people here have to compromise one way or the other deciding who to support.
Also it seems to me sometimes that when some foreign people become rich and westernised, in places like Israel and Dubai their "human rights" beliefs improve and they are more feminist, pro-gay etc, but they are also more cruel and uncaring to poor people. Whereas people with "bad" beliefs in some ways can often be very generous in other ways, for example, Christians I have known who were very fundamentalist and "socially backward" in a lot of issues but very generous in charity work and helping people. Well what do you think, is there any sense to it. I have been in evangelical/missionary churches all my life and they have a very different view of the world, I feel a bit confused about how to see things at present.
Wow, you ask a lot of an online forum, these are big questions?
Reading through the few useful responses I find myself thinking about how different environments lead to different adjustments to the human individual and in turn societies which will all interact differently...
Contemporaneously with Darwin a minor Tsarist prince who had renounced his title at twelve. Upon finishing jurisprudence training he joined a Cossack regiment and went east as a cartographer where as a 'naturalist' he recorded observations of both the non human and human 'natural' world. Peter Kropotkin turned his back on his upbringing because in it's culture he saw cruelty and injustice whereas within the community of the very serfs his own family owned he saw a generosity and collectivist leaning absent in his class. In nature he saw a myriad of interdependent relationships and within the peasant communities he saw the same.
This was the middle to late nineteenth century, during that time he did the research and lived the life that would lead to his writing 'Mutual Aid', during this time the serf class was emancipated, European culture rushed foward into an age of nationalism and there was crisis after crisis, politically, ecconomically and culturally. In nineteen seventeen The Tsar was overthrown and Russias workers and peasantry plunged into a bloody civil war, neighbour turned on neighbour, faith against faith etc... The once amiable peasant class had been hardened and now behaved brutally towards each other as easily as they leant a helping hand.
In nineteen thirty three Germany embraced a supposedly 'socialist' ecconomic culture while simultaneously declaring millions of non Germans 'untermensch' - less than human, the generosity the showed each other was paid for by the systematic disspossesion and anihilation of those untermensch.
In Africa[Zaire] there are two members of the primate family one to the north and one to the south of the Congo river, in the north the Common Chimpanzee and in the south the Bonobo or 'Pigmy Chimpanzee'.
Common Chimps are fairly violent, males dominate and they have been known to engage in inter-troop genocide.
Bonobos on the other hand are basically egalitarian, practice sexual equality and are virually non-violent.
Both apes evolved from the same stock [which branched off from the stock we humans descend from around six million years ago[. Primatologists argue about the reasons for what is basically a cultural difference, commonly environmental difference is thought to be the primary cause.
Even dissparate communities of the Common Chimp display varying cultural differences [level of violence etc].
Humanity now is caught in a bind and at the root is culture, eg, environmental attitudes can be seen as based in religious beliefs, the Judeo/Christian/Islamic faiths mainly believe the world is ours by right and therefore ours to dominate and exploit. In supposed 'primitive' cultures practicing animism all life is sacred and part of a complex matrix that we variously are here to protect, use with respect acording to need etc...
Culture is not fixed, it is mutable, ever changing, and I guess my point is do we want to be Common Chimps or Bonobo's?
We are ultimately concious beings and by informing ourselves of the complexities of various issues we get to make informed choices, or conversely we can remain ill informed and keep reciting the same tired mantras and repeating the same stupid mistakes...
peace j
_________________
Just because we can does not mean we should.
What vision is left? And is anyone asking?
Have a great day!
