NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed a phenomenon that puzzles me (it seems that the older I get, the more puzzling I find human behavior. When I was young, it seems, I knew much more than I do now). People looking for a better way of life emigrate. They're usually leaving places where the economy is dead, there are no opportunities and the laws are stifling (like California) and going to places where there is a healthier economy, opportunities and there are fewer restrictions. So, we have people from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., coming to the US and people from the Middle East coming to the US and various European countries. So far, not puzzling. They arrive with interesting foods and cultural expressions (music, religion, dance, customs) which enrich the cultures in their adopted countries (again, so far, not puzzling). But some of them, when the get to these new countries, proceed to try, sometimes violently, to change the country to suit them, usually trying to make it like the place they just left. Why? If the new place has better opportunities and fewer restrictions, why change it. If you aren't required to give up your customs (provided they don't run counter to the laws of the new country), why? Why do you want to turn your new home into your old home when you disliked your old home so much that you left it?

I suspect that part of the answer is fear, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Nostalgia, combined with ignorance?

I would say that type of behavior is part of why a lot of people are against immigration. Although I think that its relatively small portion of people who act that way, one rotten apple ruins the bunch (or makes it look that way).

Probably because they liked some aspects of their "oppressive" culture just not all of them. Or maybe they liked their culture and their government but couldn't get a good job.
I don't understand why this confuses you, no where is perfect. Do you have an example?

You want your cake, and you want to eat it. They don't want to give anything up from their old, comfortable (in a cultural norms sense) way of life. Not everything about home is necessarily bad, only the things that made you leave.

People want the opportunities without the sacrifice - a perceived 'easy way'. That's human nature, surely?

People have a hard time adjusting to change. It's in our nature.

For some they simply redecorate their home so it looks like their old one. Others try to organize the neighbourhood the way their old neighbourhood was organized. And a few try to change the whole country so that it fits their picture of how a country should look. This is also part of the explanation why so few people have left, say, the contested territories in Israel/Palestine, or the genocide in Sudan: Conditions there are awful, but they're too scared of change to go anywhere else. (That and most of them don't have the money to travel, of course.)

Hmmm... that pretty much ignores the reasons people actually emigrate. Incidentally, when I moved from Champaign, IL, to Bolingbrook, IL, it wasn't because I didn't like Champaign, IL. It was because my family was in Bolingbrook. When I moved from FL to IL it wasn't because I didn't like FL. It was because the work was in IL. See, people aren't rejecting everything about the place they leave. Usually, all it takes is a compelling reason to move and they do it. No rejection of their entire culture, government and history required.

Hmmm... that pretty much ignores the reasons people actually emigrate. Incidentally, when I moved from Champaign, IL, to Bolingbrook, IL, it wasn't because I didn't like Champaign, IL. It was because my family was in Bolingbrook. When I moved from FL to IL it wasn't because I didn't like FL. It was because the work was in IL. See, people aren't rejecting everything about the place they leave. Usually, all it takes is a compelling reason to move and they do it. No rejection of their entire culture, government and history required.

But this ignores the reasons why the place they were leaving was worse. Certainly some of those features helped make one place better than another, some part of the government or culture.

For example: You can't move from a shitty place to somewhere nice and say "If only there were more gangs." Sure you only moved to the nicer place to get a better job, but the gangs were part of the reason why you didn't have a job in your old neighborhood.

I would argue the problem lies in our tendency to associate our culture with the state, and not a representation of nation, specifically the collection of people. Our culture is malleable and diffusible, but our state is founded on certain core values that new citizens should be prepared to adopt.

I honestly couldn't care what you cook for dinner, as long as you believe in freedom, equality, justice and mate-ship.

But this ignores the reasons why the place they were leaving was worse. Certainly some of those features helped make one place better than another, some part of the government or culture.

For example: You can't move from a shitty place to somewhere nice and say "If only there were more gangs." Sure you only moved to the nicer place to get a better job, but the gangs were part of the reason why you didn't have a job in your old neighborhood.

First, there is nothing that says the other place was "worse". If one is mobile and adventurous, a lot of times nothing about the old place was necessarily bad, but rather the new place offered something they wanted.

My family immigrated here to avoid a scandal with the church about 100 years ago. Nothing about Norway was bad. They didn't dislike Norway. They didn't regard Norway as worse than the US. They simply wanted to move for personal reasons.

You're really twisting the reasons and the results badly. It's unlikely that people left their homeland because the gangs were rampant and then started gangs. Their children may have started gangs. Or they may not have had a problem with gangs, per se. Regardless, you've chosen a rather silly example that isn't likely to represent many if any of the people who immigrate to the US.

First, there is nothing that says the other place was "worse". If one is mobile and adventurous, a lot of times nothing about the old place was necessarily bad, but rather the new place offered something they wanted.

This is the part I don't get, if one place can offer you something that another can't, then isn't it better, even if just by your personal standards?

My family immigrated here to avoid a scandal with the church about 100 years ago. Nothing about Norway was bad. They didn't dislike Norway. They didn't regard Norway as worse than the US. They simply wanted to move for personal reasons.

They might not have made the leap of thought, but it certainly was, in their case. If I ever left the US, I wouldn't necessarily want to put it down, but it would be a fact that somewhere was better for me.

You're really twisting the reasons and the results badly. It's unlikely that people left their homeland because the gangs were rampant and then started gangs. Their children may have started gangs. Or they may not have had a problem with gangs, per se. Regardless, you've chosen a rather silly example that isn't likely to represent many if any of the people who immigrate to the US.

It wasn't meant to be realistic, it was a (gross) simplification to illustrate my point, that certainly some part of what they left caused the reason they left, that may or may not be something changeable. Like the weather, is unchangeable, but campaigning for sharia law in Britain is a little silly if you emmigrated to Britain from somewhere with sharia law. Also, My first post stated that I think very few people act in the way described by the OP.

It wasn't meant to be realistic, it was a (gross) simplification to illustrate my point, that certainly some part of what they left caused the reason they left, that may or may not be something changeable. Like the weather, is unchangeable, but campaigning for sharia law in Britain is a little silly if you emmigrated to Britain from somewhere with sharia law. Also, My first post stated that I think very few people act in the way described by the OP.

OK Yes. It would be silly if you left your country because you didn't like Sharia Law and then tried to enforce Sharia Law in the new country.
But, I bet 1000$ that the immagrants who try to enforce Sharia Law in their new country did not leave their old country because they didn't like Sharia Law. There was probably a totally different reason for their leaving.

This is the part I don't get, if one place can offer you something that another can't, then isn't it better, even if just by your personal standards?

Not in any relevant ways. We're talking about things that are inherent to the place you've moved to and from. If I moved to be closer to my family but otherwise liked everything about the place I moved from, why wouldn't I try to change the place I moved to? If you define "better" the way you are, then the OP is a nonsensical post.

They might not have made the leap of thought, but it certainly was, in their case. If I ever left the US, I wouldn't necessarily want to put it down, but it would be a fact that somewhere was better for me.

Better in a way that may have nothing to do with either of the two places themselves. I know you're now trying to water down "better", but given the topic, it's silly.

It wasn't meant to be realistic, it was a (gross) simplification to illustrate my point, that certainly some part of what they left caused the reason they left, that may or may not be something changeable. Like the weather, is unchangeable, but campaigning for sharia law in Britain is a little silly if you emmigrated to Britain from somewhere with sharia law. Also, My first post stated that I think very few people act in the way described by the OP.

See, you realize that you're not being very consistent here. If I moved due to family, what the hell would that have to do with me wanting or not wanting Sharia Law in the new place? It wouldn't be remotely silly. What would be silly is pretending like because I moved away from a place with Sharia Law that I'd have to desire to leave it behind.

The issue is the reason I left would absolutely determine what things I might want to have when I get to the new place. If I leave an apartment complex with a pool to move to another apartment complex, would it be silly for me to try and get the tenants association to put a pool in the new place?

OK Yes. It would be silly if you left your country because you didn't like Sharia Law and then tried to enforce Sharia Law in the new country.
But, I bet 1000$ that the immagrants who try to enforce Sharia Law in their new country did not leave their old country because they didn't like Sharia Law. There was probably a totally different reason for their leaving.

Exactly.

Because, golly gee wiz, as much as the new place rocks, sometimes the old country did do somethings better, like NOT putting hot dogs in tacos. Or even HAVING tacos.

Immigrants, especially those arriving in large numbers, profoundly change their new home.

But, they themselves are profoundly changed as well.

Islam faces major challenges as the diaspora grows. It will change. "And that," to quote Gandalf, "is a comforting thought."

Because, golly gee wiz, as much as the new place rocks, sometimes the old country did do somethings better, like NOT putting hot dogs in tacos. Or even HAVING tacos.I'm utterly afraid of whatever experience it was that brought you into contact with Taco Hot Dogs. :tongue:

In response to the OP: I imagine that people often emigrate to leave behind one aspect of daily life that they didn't like. I find it hard to believe that people come to America looking for an entirely new start.

I'm utterly afraid of whatever experience it was that brought you into contact with Taco Hot Dogs. :tongue:
Ordering a taco at what supposedly an AMERICAN style coffeehouse and finding out the hard way what the secret ingredient was.

But I thought I DID vote for Change? :confused:


:$:p

Ordering a taco at what supposedly an AMERICAN style coffeehouse and finding out the hard way what the secret ingredient was.

Yeah, that was your mistake:p

If I leave an apartment complex with a pool to move to another apartment complex, would it be silly for me to try and get the tenants association to put a pool in the new place?

It would be silly if the majority of that complex didn't want the pool, and you move in and try like hell to get a pool installed.

It would be silly if the majority of that complex didn't want the pool, and you move in and try like hell to get a pool installed.

That assumes that I care what the majority of the complex thinks. There are a number of reasons that one could do that, that wouldn't be silly.

In the case of Sharia Law, people who are trying to get it installed believe it is the right thing to do. I can say with all honesty that if I had reason to move to a country where women didn't have equal rights, I'd do everything I could do to make them equal even if the majority of the country said they didn't want me to do so. I'm crazy like that.

Oddly, I don't think such things as right and wrong should be up to tyranny of the majority. Fortunately, most first-world countries feel the same way.

Better is a subjective term. One culture cannot be better than another. OP should research cultural relativism.

QED

this would all be solved with me as dictator with the right to implement culture on a top down approach.

I've noticed a phenomenon that puzzles me (it seems that the older I get, the more puzzling I find human behavior. When I was young, it seems, I knew much more than I do now). People looking for a better way of life emigrate. They're usually leaving places where the economy is dead, there are no opportunities and the laws are stifling (like California) and going to places where there is a healthier economy, opportunities and there are fewer restrictions. So, we have people from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., coming to the US and people from the Middle East coming to the US and various European countries. So far, not puzzling. They arrive with interesting foods and cultural expressions (music, religion, dance, customs) which enrich the cultures in their adopted countries (again, so far, not puzzling). But some of them, when the get to these new countries, proceed to try, sometimes violently, to change the country to suit them, usually trying to make it like the place they just left. Why? If the new place has better opportunities and fewer restrictions, why change it. If you aren't required to give up your customs (provided they don't run counter to the laws of the new country), why? Why do you want to turn your new home into your old home when you disliked your old home so much that you left it?

I suspect that part of the answer is fear, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

I relocated from England to the US. If I'd have known what a clusterfuck healthcare was really going to be, in practise, I might have stayed where I was.

So - I'd really like to see healthcare changed.

The question then is - well, why did you migrate? And the answer is simple - what made America 'better' than the UK, for me, was my wife being here with our little girl. All the rest of it is secondary - but that doesn't mean I'm content with the status quo.


As an answer to the question of why immigrants often try to reshape the new world into the old - it's not easy being an immigrant. Even the white anglo-saxon protestant looking dudes with the English accents run into barriers that Americans don't run into. Multiply that by hardship with shared languages, the colour of your skin, and a different religion, and being an immigrant is a trial. You get accused of not assimilating, but you can't get the same jobs as everyone else and you're discriminated against when you want to live in 'their' areas.

It's really no wonder that many immigrants fall back on what they know, even the bits they didn't like. It gives them a feeling of 'home' that their adopted nation denies them, and makes them feel strong in a culture that completely dis-empowers them.

Ordering a taco at what supposedly an AMERICAN style coffeehouse and finding out the hard way what the secret ingredient was.

Bits of LG?

I'm utterly afraid of whatever experience it was that brought you into contact with Taco Hot Dogs. :tongue:


In my home town in Michigan we have a place that serves what they call "Dutch-Mex". It involves making a hot dog, complete with bun (toppings vary according to what kind you order), then wrapping it in a tortilla and steaming the tortilla.

Better is a subjective term. One culture cannot be better than another. OP should research cultural relativism.

QED

Ginnie, I've studied Anthropology. I'm aware of what cultural relativism is. I don't, for one minute, believe that all cultures are equal. Cultures that espouse honor killings, female circumcision and forced conversions are definitely not equal to cultures that espouse freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and not mutilating the unwilling. I have no issues with Muslims coming to my country. I have no problems with their religion in my country. Or with their food, their attire, their music and many of their customs (those that do not contravene the law of my country). I have no problem with Muslim women who want to submit themselves, of their own free will, to Islamic laws. What I do have a problem with is those Muslims who think that their religious laws take priority over our civil laws. I have a problem with immigrants who think that their customs must take priority over the laws of my country while they are in my country. If I go to their country, I observe their laws, I expect the same of them in my country.

Because, golly gee wiz, as much as the new place rocks, sometimes the old country did do somethings better, like NOT putting hot dogs in tacos. Or even HAVING tacos.

I'm utterly afraid of whatever experience it was that brought you into contact with Taco Hot Dogs. :tongue:

In response to the OP: I imagine that people often emigrate to leave behind one aspect of daily life that they didn't like. I find it hard to believe that people come to America looking for an entirely new start.

Ordering a taco at what supposedly an AMERICAN style coffeehouse and finding out the hard way what the secret ingredient was.

Oh, those silly silly Japanese.

Bits of LG?

Not that bit! :eek:

People want the opportunities without the sacrifice - a perceived 'easy way'. That's human nature, surely?

I think Holy Cheese nailed it here

Do you have an example?

You want an example, watch the news. I suspect the OP didn't include any specific examples because they didn't want to get bogged down in defending against spurious claims of 'racism' or 'classism' or whatever the hell people felt like sticking an 'ism' on.

Better is a subjective term. One culture cannot be better than another. OP should research cultural relativism

Wrong. wrong wrong wrong wrong! One culture CAN be better than another. It is entirely possible for that to happen. A culture that respects and practices(however haphazardly) justice, freedom and a respect for the individual is better than a culture that embraces 'honor killings', and cliterectomies on young girls.

Also, why put QED at the end your statement? You demonstrated nothing.

Ginnie, I've studied Anthropology. I'm aware of what cultural relativism is. I don't, for one minute, believe that all cultures are equal. Cultures that espouse honor killings, female circumcision and forced conversions are definitely not equal to cultures that espouse freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and not mutilating the unwilling. I have no issues with Muslims coming to my country. I have no problems with their religion in my country. Or with their food, their attire, their music and many of their customs (those that do not contravene the law of my country). I have no problem with Muslim women who want to submit themselves, of their own free will, to Islamic laws. What I do have a problem with is those Muslims who think that their religious laws take priority over our civil laws. I have a problem with immigrants who think that their customs must take priority over the laws of my country while they are in my country. If I go to their country, I observe their laws, I expect the same of them in my country.
Ok, what, exactly, are you complaining about here then?

Ok, what, exactly, are you complaining about here then?

Yeah, are you complaining about immigrants breaking US laws? Because your original post seemed to say that immigrants should not say that any one aspect of their old country is better than the new country.

In response to the OP: I imagine that people often emigrate to leave behind one aspect of daily life that they didn't like. I find it hard to believe that people come to America looking for an entirely new start.

Who's going to go through all the hardship and trouble of uprooting yourself and moving to an entirely different country because of one thing? Hell, there's more than 'one aspect of daily life' that I dislike here, but I'm not about to move anywhere else(mostly because no matter how hard I try, I can't think of anywhere better) I think that people do move here looking for an entirely new start, because that's one of the things America has always offered.

I have a problem with immigrants who think that their customs must take priority over the laws of my country while they are in my country. If I go to their country, I observe their laws, I expect the same of them in my country.

I heard Dennis Miller say once 'the courtesy of integration deserves the courtesy of assimilation.'

Who's going to go through all the hardship and trouble of uprooting yourself and moving to an entirely different country because of one thing? Hell, there's more than 'one aspect of daily life' that I dislike here, but I'm not about to move anywhere else(mostly because no matter how hard I try, I can't think of anywhere better) I think that people do move here looking for an entirely new start, because that's one of the things America has always offered.
You obviously haven't talked to many immigrants then. I am one and I live with a future one. Sometimes one issue is all that it takes. Sometimes more. Very, VERY rarely is it anything to do with getting an entirely new start.

You obviously haven't talked to many immigrants then. I am one and I live with a future one. Sometimes one issue is all that it takes. Sometimes more. Very, VERY rarely is it anything to do with getting an entirely new start.

Your argument only works if every person who immigrated to a different country thought like you do. I may not have talked to a lot of immigrants, but I doubt you've talked to them all.

Plus, I was speaking of why I think people come to America. I don't know why people might choose to go from say Sweden to say Great Britain, or why someone might choose to go from America, to say, Belgium.

Your argument only works if every person who immigrated to a different country thought like you do. I may not have talked to a lot of immigrants, but I doubt you've talked to them all.
Willing to bet that I've talked to more than you have.

Plus, I was speaking of why I think people come to America. I don't know why people might choose to go from say Sweden to say Great Britain, or why someone might choose to go from America, to say, Belgium.
Plus I was speaking of a future immigrant to the US, not to mention all those folks I know who have immigrated to the US and whom, surprise, surprise, I talk to.

I live in Europe and I know a school where they serve Halal food for all kids. That's a bridge too far. I don't mind that some people eat Halal things, but they don't have to push that I have to eat it. Foreigners should always adapt themselves to the local culture and not vice versa.

In Saudi Arabia, women can't drive a car and have to wear a veil in public. And it isn't that easy to drink a simple beer. When I am in that country, I have to respect those rules, even if they look silly to me. And if I can't respect it then I don't have to enter the country.

Odds are low that I ever visit Saudi Arabia.

Plus I was speaking of a future immigrant to the US, not to mention all those folks I know who have immigrated to the US and whom, surprise, surprise, I talk to.

What's the one thing, then?

What's the one thing, then?
It changes. Some come for jobs. Some come for education. Some come because of family (actually, a lot come for family), but I have yet to meet anyone who decided that they completely hated their old country and decided to start completely anew in the United States.

It's a nice myth, but it doesn't actually wash.

but I have yet to meet anyone who decided that they completely hated their old country and decided to start completely anew in the United States.

I never said anything about people completely hating their old home. In fact, what I said was almost the complete opposite. 'Wanted a fresh new start' does not equal 'completely hated their country.'

I never said anything about people completely hating their old home. In fact, what I said was almost the complete opposite. 'Wanted a fresh new start' does not equal 'completely hated their country.'
Very well, but the point stands, very few coming seeking a fresh new start.

I never said anything about people completely hating their old home. In fact, what I said was almost the complete opposite. 'Wanted a fresh new start' does not equal 'completely hated their country.'However, a "Fresh Start" (to me) carries with it the connotation that one intends to sever ties with their former life and begin anew.

Perhaps I worded my argument wrong. While there are instances where a single issue is so disagreeable that people are willing to emigrate from their homeland, in my experience emigration was driven by an apathy for ones current situation coupled with a single, overpowering issue.

A general economic malaise, coupled with a personal inability to find a job, can be a huge motivator. Relationships, education, whatever: all can drive somebody to emigrate. My point was more centered on the fact that emigration is hardly as cut-and-dry as our dear OP put it: Even if you do want a fresh start, it's simply not reasonable to expect somebody to drop every last reminder of their homeland. Indeed, the very diversity that nations such as the United States pride themselves on is a direct result of immigrants coming to Ellis Island with nothing but the belief that hard work could lead to success, no matter your birth or upbringing.

I think that the main problem with those who refuse to mold to the country they move to is more of a fear of change than anything else.

I've noticed a phenomenon that puzzles me (it seems that the older I get, the more puzzling I find human behavior. When I was young, it seems, I knew much more than I do now). People looking for a better way of life emigrate. They're usually leaving places where the economy is dead, there are no opportunities and the laws are stifling (like California) and going to places where there is a healthier economy, opportunities and there are fewer restrictions. So, we have people from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., coming to the US and people from the Middle East coming to the US and various European countries. So far, not puzzling. They arrive with interesting foods and cultural expressions (music, religion, dance, customs) which enrich the cultures in their adopted countries (again, so far, not puzzling). But some of them, when the get to these new countries, proceed to try, sometimes violently, to change the country to suit them, usually trying to make it like the place they just left. Why? If the new place has better opportunities and fewer restrictions, why change it. If you aren't required to give up your customs (provided they don't run counter to the laws of the new country), why? Why do you want to turn your new home into your old home when you disliked your old home so much that you left it?

I suspect that part of the answer is fear, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

In a word 'culture'. It is nigh on impossible for us to think outside of our cultural boxes. Everything, all of our belifes, our morality, absolutely everything about us stems from our cultural background.

If you then move from one culture to another, you still view the world with the same eyes that you have always had, and now the differances rub you up the wrong way.

In Britian a public display of affection between man and wife is nowt out of the ordinary, in India though well that's a differant matter.

I think that the main problem with those who refuse to mold to the country they move to is more of a fear of change than anything else.Well, to some extent it's dependent on economic situation: For poor immigrants arriving in America (legally or otherwise) the housing and job situation is hardly ideal. Indeed, if you come to the USA in search of opportunity rather than an entirely new life, it's far more comfortable to live amongst those with similar stories and origins.

Even if you'd like to be accepted as nothing more-or-less than an American citizen, it's not going to happen. I hate to say it, but you will stand out if you are an immigrant. The difference between first-generation immigrants and their children is enormous, simply because the latter was immersed in American culture and the former was not.

Immigrants often don't do a great job of letting nationals into their lives, and we don't take nearly enough interest in them. It's practically fear coming from both parties, but I honestly can't say what a compromise would look like.

I've noticed a phenomenon that puzzles me (it seems that the older I get, the more puzzling I find human behavior. When I was young, it seems, I knew much more than I do now). People looking for a better way of life emigrate. They're usually leaving places where the economy is dead, there are no opportunities and the laws are stifling (like California) and going to places where there is a healthier economy, opportunities and there are fewer restrictions. So, we have people from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., coming to the US and people from the Middle East coming to the US and various European countries. So far, not puzzling. They arrive with interesting foods and cultural expressions (music, religion, dance, customs) which enrich the cultures in their adopted countries (again, so far, not puzzling). But some of them, when the get to these new countries, proceed to try, sometimes violently, to change the country to suit them, usually trying to make it like the place they just left. Why? If the new place has better opportunities and fewer restrictions, why change it. If you aren't required to give up your customs (provided they don't run counter to the laws of the new country), why? Why do you want to turn your new home into your old home when you disliked your old home so much that you left it?

I suspect that part of the answer is fear, but I'd be interested to hear other opinions.
The answer seems so painfully obvious to me that I must be missing something.

Yes, people want a better life.

Yes, they also want to retain many familiar elements of their own culture, at the same time that they would like a better life.

How is this surprising?

Cultures that espouse honor killings, female circumcision and forced conversions are definitely not equal to cultures that espouse freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and not mutilating the unwilling.

Wrong. wrong wrong wrong wrong! One culture CAN be better than another. It is entirely possible for that to happen. A culture that respects and practices(however haphazardly) justice, freedom and a respect for the individual is better than a culture that embraces 'honor killings', and cliterectomies on young girls.

As soon as you can show me a universal definition of "equal", "better", "freedom", and all the other subjective words used, I will declare you right. But until then, your opinion is clouded by your cultural conditioning and I stand by my point. Cultures cannot be better simply because they espouse some view that you consider better. They can only be different.

As soon as you can show me a universal definition of "equal", "better", "freedom", and all the other subjective words used, I will declare you right. But until then, your opinion is clouded by your cultural conditioning and I stand by my point. Cultures cannot be better simply because they espouse some view that you consider better. They can only be different.

You are 100% correct. By which standard do we judge anothers culture? Why by our own cultural standard, biased innit.

You are 100% correct. By which standard do we judge anothers culture? Why by our own cultural standard, biased innit.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it right either.

As soon as you can show me a universal definition of "equal", "better", "freedom", and all the other subjective words used, I will declare you right. But until then, your opinion is clouded by your cultural conditioning and I stand by my point. Cultures cannot be better simply because they espouse some view that you consider better. They can only be different.

Do you believe that women are and should be equal to men? Do you consider this a cultural value or an absolute value?

If it is an absolute, then cultures that treat women as inferior to men are inferior.

If it is a cultural value, then the status of women is relative to the culture they belong to and women, in your view, are not really equal to men.

Cultural relativity is a tool created by Anthropologists to absolve them of complicity in crimes like murder, rape and child molestation - as soon as you label behaviors like these "cultural" and not "sick and depraved" you distance yourself from them and create yet another culture where ethics become moot.

When you have a culture that displays behavior that is known to be harmful to people within that culture (female circumcision, honor killings, - strange, is it not, that most of these harmful behaviors seem to be aimed primarily at women), then you can pretty much be sure that you have a sick culture.

Most cultures are sick, and most are trying to get better. The ones I'm unhappy with see no reason to try to get better.

OK Yes. It would be silly if you left your country because you didn't like Sharia Law and then tried to enforce Sharia Law in the new country.
But, I bet 1000$ that the immagrants who try to enforce Sharia Law in their new country did not leave their old country because they didn't like Sharia Law. There was probably a totally different reason for their leaving.

Well, here is where its relevant, sharia law probably doesn't promote good economic growth- for a number of reasons. If you left your country because it had a shitty economy, and then wanted sharia law where you moved to it just might be counter-productive...

Do you believe that women are and should be equal to men? Do you consider this a cultural value or an absolute value?

If it is an absolute, then cultures that treat women as inferior to men are inferior.

If it is a cultural value, then the status of women is relative to the culture they belong to and women, in your view, are not really equal to men.

That doesn't seem to follow directly. If he believes it's a cultural value, then it depends upon his culture whether or not they're equal in his view. By, like, definition. You can't just go, 'If you think it's cultural, well, it's still absolute and your belief is wrong.'

Not in any relevant ways. We're talking about things that are inherent to the place you've moved to and from. If I moved to be closer to my family but otherwise liked everything about the place I moved from, why wouldn't I try to change the place I moved to? If you define "better" the way you are, then the OP is a nonsensical post.

no, it just means what she posted isn't always the case.



Better in a way that may have nothing to do with either of the two places themselves. I know you're now trying to water down "better", but given the topic, it's silly.

yup


See, you realize that you're not being very consistent here. If I moved due to family, what the hell would that have to do with me wanting or not wanting Sharia Law in the new place? It wouldn't be remotely silly. What would be silly is pretending like because I moved away from a place with Sharia Law that I'd have to desire to leave it behind.

see above.

The issue is the reason I left would absolutely determine what things I might want to have when I get to the new place. If I leave an apartment complex with a pool to move to another apartment complex, would it be silly for me to try and get the tenants association to put a pool in the new place?

It would be silly if you moved because of the low rent and then wanted a pool, yes. I've said all along that the cases shes cites (or rather, where the OP makes sense) are by no way indicative of the majority of immigrants.

That doesn't seem to follow directly. If he believes it's a cultural value, then it depends upon his culture whether or not they're equal in his view. By, like, definition. You can't just go, 'If you think it's cultural, well, it's still absolute and your belief is wrong.'

I guess that all depends on whether one is capable of separating oneself from their culture to make an unbiased judgment.

Frankly theres no way to say whats "better" without a set of values you think are better. To many people equality=better, to others equality=/=better. I believe the argument, is more, if you think its better, why change it? as its impossible to objectively say what is better. Frankly I like having somewhere to live and so forth, others may subjectively disagree for example. It's like asking whats better, a pickup truck or a race car? The obvious response is do I want to go fast, or carry a lot of stuff?

That assumes that I care what the majority of the complex thinks. There are a number of reasons that one could do that, that wouldn't be silly.

So the way I understand this, it's alright for you to move in and demand a pool just because you think it's the right thing to do? The people's opinion (people who have lived there much longer than you) doesn't matter?

In the case of Sharia Law, people who are trying to get it installed believe it is the right thing to do. I can say with all honesty that if I had reason to move to a country where women didn't have equal rights, I'd do everything I could do to make them equal even if the majority of the country said they didn't want me to do so. I'm crazy like that.

Oddly, I don't think such things as right and wrong should be up to tyranny of the majority. Fortunately, most first-world countries feel the same way.

So you think it's alright to move into a country, a country you were not forced to move to, and demand that things be changed just because you think it's wrong? The majority doesn't matter because your way is the right way?

What even gives you the right to do that?

So the way I understand this, it's alright for you to move in and demand a pool just because you think it's the right thing to do? The people's opinion (people who have lived there much longer than you) doesn't matter?



So you think it's alright to move into a country, a country you were not forced to move to, and demand that things be changed just because you think it's wrong? The majority doesn't matter because your way is the right way?

What even gives you the right to do that?

I don't see anything wrong with demanding something. You seem to assume if he demands a pool, he'll get it.

Do you believe that women are and should be equal to men? Do you consider this a cultural value or an absolute value?

If it is an absolute, then cultures that treat women as inferior to men are inferior.

If it is a cultural value, then the status of women is relative to the culture they belong to and women, in your view, are not really equal to men.

Cultural relativity is a tool created by Anthropologists to absolve them of complicity in crimes like murder, rape and child molestation - as soon as you label behaviors like these "cultural" and not "sick and depraved" you distance yourself from them and create yet another culture where ethics become moot.

When you have a culture that displays behavior that is known to be harmful to people within that culture (female circumcision, honor killings, - strange, is it not, that most of these harmful behaviors seem to be aimed primarily at women), then you can pretty much be sure that you have a sick culture.

Most cultures are sick, and most are trying to get better. The ones I'm unhappy with see no reason to try to get better.

I think cultural relativism is a bit trickier than that because culture is an amorphous and changing thing.

If we had two cultures that were exactly the same but only differed in their respect for women, we could safely say that one is better than the other if we believe in equality as an absolute. But we never have two cultures that are exactly the same.

Nor do we have a consistent definition of cultural traits for a specific culture. For example, we have some Muslims bombing infidels, and some working to make apostasy legal in Islamic theocracies. Which is representative of the culture? Neither and both. They are simply examples of how one culture can simultaneously move in two opposing directions.

So even if we believe that we can judge cultures according to some absolute scale, it would be like nailing jello to a wall.

So, we can safely say things like: in general terms, European cultures are better for women's equality than Islamic theocracies. Now, is that cultural relativism or not? I don't know, but it does hint at how difficult it is to compare cultures.

Frankly theres no way to say whats "better" without a set of values you think are better. To many people equality=better, to others equality=/=better. I believe the argument, is more, if you think its better, why change it? as its impossible to objectively say what is better. Frankly I like having somewhere to live and so forth, others may subjectively disagree for example. It's like asking whats better, a pickup truck or a race car? The obvious response is do I want to go fast, or carry a lot of stuff?

Oh, I have no concern for that, it's simply that ASD is trying to make sexism an inherent feature of cultural relativism, completely (and perhaps purposely) missing the point of the concept.

Heh - Californians visit Idaho and like the rustic openness. Then they move here and build gated communities full of McMansions, complain about gravel roads, and complain about the agriculture and forestry industries that support the local population. Same general thing.

Oh, I have no concern for that, it's simply that ASD is trying to make sexism an inherent feature of cultural relativism, completely (and perhaps purposely) missing the point of the concept.

Not an inherent feature, but an example of cultural differences where harm to a group is part of one culture. I could have as easily cited the culture where 12 year old boys are circumcised publicly and without anesthetic. But it does seem, doesn't it, that women and children are the most frequently harmed groups.

Do you believe that "cultural relativity" is a valid excuse for this sort of thing?

And do you believe that groups whose culture espouse this sort of thing, should be permitted to continue these practices when they move into a culture where this sort of thing is against the law - in the name of cultural relativity.

I honestly believe that culture is not an excuse for this sort of savagery. The world doesn't apply "cultural relativity" to the US when we, as part of our culture, practice subtle forms of racism, and shouldn't excuse non-subtle forms of sexism, racism and agism in other cultures in the name of "relativity."

Do you believe that women are and should be equal to men? Do you consider this a cultural value or an absolute value?

Nice. I'm a sexist if I believe in cultural relativity? An interesting proposition, but I believe its been addressed enough.

Do you believe that "cultural relativity" is a valid excuse for this sort of thing?
I don't think you understand. Cultural relativity isn't an excuse, its not a cover for anthropologists who were complicit in murder, or however you put it, it is an attempt for unbiased examination of other cultures. Which is the expressed goal of anthropology itself. It is your role as an opinionated internet forumite to pass judgment on other cultures, but this is not the role of the anthropologist. Anthropology studies them in order to learn more about the human race in general, our differences and our similarities. Obviously I don't agree with certain things, such as female circumcision or honor killings, but this is because I'm an American and have been raised that way. I imagine you're a Westerner as well, so we don't disagree. But the idea of cultural relativism isn't to rubber stamp practices that I might find distasteful (or detestable), it is to look beyond the cultural conditioning that I have been given environmentally, and study a culture free of such judgments.

In a more practical sense, it is a distancing of the field and study of anthropology from the days of paternalist European armchair anthropologists and racists viewing other cultures through a more... Conradian lens.

You keep passing judgments, and I'll keep coming back and bugging you about how you're passing judgments that you're not able to pass. We'll get along smashingly.

Nice. I'm a sexist if I believe in cultural relativity? An interesting proposition, but I believe its been addressed enough.


I don't think you understand. Cultural relativity isn't an excuse, its not a cover for anthropologists who were complicit in murder, or however you put it, it is an attempt for unbiased examination of other cultures. Which is the expressed goal of anthropology itself. It is your role as an opinionated internet forumite to pass judgment on other cultures, but this is not the role of the anthropologist. Anthropology studies them in order to learn more about the human race in general, our differences and our similarities.

You keep passing judgments, and I'll keep coming back and bugging you about how you're passing judgments that you're not able to pass. We'll get along smashingly.

You should, perhaps, rephrase that. Since I'm "passing judgements" clearly, I'm able to pass them. And there's a huge difference between using cultural relativity as a means to objectivity in a supposedly scientific context and using it as a means of excusing (for lack of a better term) certain cultural behaviors.

I repeat my question, is cultural relativity a valid excuse for behaviors that are harmful to groups? Especially groups that have been rendered helpless by the cultures they live in - like children, and women.

See, most cultures that eliminate the rights of these groups turn around and offer them protections (however inadequate these protections may be). What say you, then, to cultures (like the Taliban, for example) that eliminate both rights and protections for women?

You also, in your crusade for cultural relativity, haven't addressed the original question, which is do these cultures have the right to demand that they be permitted to practice their harmful customs in the face of the laws in countries (other than their own) where they have chosen to reside?

Since I'm "passing judgements" clearly, I'm able to pass them.
I would never dream of standing in your way when you make moralistic and subjective judgments about other cultures. Its in the Constitution, after all.

And there's a huge difference between using cultural relativity as a means to objectivity in a supposedly scientific context and using it as a means of excusing (for lack of a better term) certain cultural behaviors.

Cultural relativity isn't an excuse, its not a cover for anthropologists who were complicit in murder, or however you put it, it is an attempt for unbiased examination of other cultures.

I repeat my question, is cultural relativity a valid excuse for behaviors that are harmful to groups?
Cultural relativity isn't an excuse, its not a cover for anthropologists who were complicit in murder, or however you put it, it is an attempt for unbiased examination of other cultures.

See, most cultures that eliminate the rights of these groups turn around and offer them protections (however inadequate these protections may be). What say you, then, to cultures (like the Taliban, for example) that eliminate both rights and protections for women?

Anthropologists are not moral crusaders, entering other cultures with an eye on what's wrong and a gun pointed at whoever's guilty. That's the American military's role. Anthropologists, as I stated very clearly, are scientists, studying culture. Not attempting to change anything.

Do you read what I write? Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Here, I'll try again.

Cultural relativity isn't an excuse, its not a cover for anthropologists who were complicit in murder, or however you put it, it is an attempt for unbiased examination of other cultures.

I would never dream of standing in your way when you make moralistic and subjective judgments about other cultures. Its in the Constitution, after all.










Anthropologists are not moral crusaders, entering other cultures with an eye on what's wrong and a gun pointed at whoever's guilty. That's the American military's role. Anthropologists, as I stated very clearly, are scientists, studying culture. Not attempting to change anything.

Do you read what I write? Sometimes I wonder why I bother. Here, I'll try again.

Ginnie, you've still failed to answer my questions.

If I grant that cultural relativity is a useful tool in maintaining scientific objectivity while making scientific enquiry, is it valid to cry "cultural relativity" and turn your back in the face of clearly harmful cultural behaviors when observed outside the umbrella of science?

Are we required to permit those harmful behaviors to violate our own norms when they occur in our country?

If I go to Saudi Arabia, where women are, as a cultural norm, sequestered and have virtually no rights, am I as a western woman, permitted to follow western customs and do as I damn well please, and the sensibilities of Muslim males be damned, while I reside there? My behavior does no objective harm to Muslim men, other than offending them. It does no harm to western men at all.

Yet Muslim men, practicing things like honor killings and female circumcision while they live in western countries, disregard the actual laws (not just the customs) of those countries.

You have not addressed these.

Are you attempting to avoid these questions?

...
Yet Muslim men, practicing things like honor killings and female circumcision...

Female genital mutilation is not part of any Islamic culture. It is mostly centred in sub-Saharan Africa and the horn of Eritrea. While there are Muslims in this region, it is not confined to the Islamic portion of the population, and I think the practice also predates Islamic influence in the area. Also, it is often performed by women.

Just nitpicking at some facts. It's not really important to your argument.

Female genital mutilation is not part of any Islamic culture. It is mostly centred in sub-Saharan Africa and the horn of Eritrea. While there are Muslims in this region, it is not confined to the Islamic portion of the population, and I think the practice also predates Islamic influence in the area. Also, it is often performed by women.

Just nitpicking at some facts. It's not really important to your argument.

Yeah, I know. When Islam, like Christianity, imposed itself on various cultures, it, like Christianity, picked up local practices - as I've said before, culture trumps religion. And, yes, it is, sometimes, performed by women, but it's part of the overall patriarchal picture in those areas. And that doesn't make it any less harmful.

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/fgm/fgm.htm.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Ginnie, you've still failed to answer my questions.

If I grant that cultural relativity is a useful tool in maintaining scientific objectivity while making scientific enquiry, is it valid to cry "cultural relativity" and turn your back in the face of clearly harmful cultural behaviors when observed outside the umbrella of science?
I am not addressing issues of people outside of anthropology. I am speaking about cultural relativism, which is a concept quite firmly rooted in anthropological study.

Are we required to permit those harmful behaviors to violate our own norms when they occur in our country?
No one is required to permit any behaviors if they violate the laws of a country. We (or at least I) am not talking about actions that violate laws of Western countries. I was under the impression we were discussing countries where such actions are permitted under law because of the cultural formation of law.

If I go to Saudi Arabia, where women are, as a cultural norm, sequestered and have virtually no rights, am I as a western woman, permitted to follow western customs and do as I damn well please, and the sensibilities of Muslim males be damned, while I reside there? My behavior does no objective harm to Muslim men, other than offending them. It does no harm to western men at all.
This has nothing to do with cultural relativism.

Yet Muslim men, practicing things like honor killings and female circumcision while they live in western countries, disregard the actual laws (not just the customs) of those countries.
Where has this taken place? I heard about honor killings in the US a while ago, but I also heard that it was a fake, fear-mongering story.

Where has this taken place? I heard about honor killings in the US a while ago, but I also heard that it was a fake, fear-mongering story.


Happens a lot in the tribal regions of Pakistan. Used to be officially condoned by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I am not addressing issues of people outside of anthropology. I am speaking about cultural relativism, which is a concept quite firmly rooted in anthropological study.


No one is required to permit any behaviors if they violate the laws of a country. We (or at least I) am not talking about actions that violate laws of Western countries. I was under the impression we were discussing countries where such actions are permitted under law because of the cultural formation of law.


This has nothing to do with cultural relativism.


Where has this taken place? I heard about honor killings in the US a while ago, but I also heard that it was a fake, fear-mongering story.

Whether it happened in the US or not is moot. There are recorded incidents of it happening in Germany, a suspected case in the US as recently as this year and a plethora of cases of, not only honor killings, but torture and disfigurement as a result of perceived slights to male honor (for the record, the Koran does not seem to support this behavior).

In any case can a culture that tolerates this sort of human rights violation be considered a good, healthy culture?

http://www.gendercide.org/case_honour.html
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/581540.html

Once "cultural relativism" is taken out of the context of scientific research, it loses meaning. As a scientist you can look objectively at a subject. Once the subject is outside the umbrella of science, you have to give it a human face.

So the way I understand this, it's alright for you to move in and demand a pool just because you think it's the right thing to do? The people's opinion (people who have lived there much longer than you) doesn't matter?

You're right. It doesn't matter. I'm crazy enough to think what I consider right and wrong is not subject to popularity. Crazy, huh?


So you think it's alright to move into a country, a country you were not forced to move to, and demand that things be changed just because you think it's wrong? The majority doesn't matter because your way is the right way?

What even gives you the right to do that?

What gives me the right? I don't know, nature, God, depends what you believe. It certainly isn't the country that grants me rights. If it was, it would priveleges, not rights.

I strongly suspect (and I'm only going by the fact they openly said it) that the people protesting that people try to move in and change a place also believe that equality should be universal. They're nice and inconsistent that way.

You also, in your crusade for cultural relativity, haven't addressed the original question, which is do these cultures have the right to demand that they be permitted to practice their harmful customs in the face of the laws in countries (other than their own) where they have chosen to reside?Ooo! Ooo! I know the answer to this one, YES! Yes they do. They have every right to demand that changes be made to whatever country they are in just as that country has the right to vote on it or have their representatives vote on it, and approve the change or not. There's nothing wrong with an immigrant saying, "I'd like it if we did X" any more than a native born citizen saying the exact same thing. Native citizens also protest, loudly, they also violate the laws, horribly, and yet I don't see threads about how DARE an American set up camp in front of the White House and DEMAND that President Obama do away with all nuclear weapons.

Are we required to permit those harmful behaviors to violate our own norms when they occur in our country?

Yet Muslim men, practicing things like honor killings and female circumcision while they live in western countries, disregard the actual laws (not just the customs) of those countries.

You have not addressed these.

Are you attempting to avoid these questions?

Where has this taken place? I heard about honor killings in the US a while ago, but I also heard that it was a fake, fear-mongering story.

Whether it happened in the US or not is moot. There are recorded incidents of it happening in Germany, a suspected case in the US as recently as this year and a plethora of cases of, not only honor killings, but torture and disfigurement as a result of perceived slights to male honor (for the record, the Koran does not seem to support this behavior).

I'm beginning to think the problem isn't you don't listen to me, its that you don't listen to yourself.

I don't know of a single instance where someone has used the term or the idea of cultural relativism to justify cultural practices that might seem to "violate human rights". So the hypothetical question of someone using it as such is not one I care to address, since as all good students of international relations know, hypothetical situations need to be realistic to be valid. Otherwise, what would have happened at Waterloo is Napoleon had had stealth bombers?