thomas malloy wrote:
That area of agreement a leftist notion called cultural relativism (the
idea that all cultures are all equally good) which is leading to cultural
suicide.
That definition of cultural relativity is completely wrong, misleading and
childish. The term has nothing to do with whether cultures are good or bad.
It means: "Studying another culture from its point of view without imposing
our own cultural views." It is an essential skill in fields such as
anthropology, history and military intelligence. You cannot "know your
enemy" unless you learn to think like him. I know a great deal about this,
because the people who taught me Japanese history, anthropology and
language were all WWII vets (mostly on the U.S. side, plus one or two from
the Imperial Japanese Army). If the U.S. experts had not been cultural
relativists, several hundred thousand more people on both sides would have
been killed. I am quite sure those experts did not consider the 1930s
militarist Japanese culture "equally good" as the previous Japanese culture
it usurped, or as the U.S. and Chinese culture it was determined to
destroy. However, they (and I) understood that culture quite well in its
own context, according to its own internal rules and logic, which are every
bit as comprehensive and functional as the rules in any other society. The
Japanese were not merely pretending they had a different set of values --
they actually did, although most U.S. experts did not believe it until
after Pearl Harbor. That explains, for example, why Japan attacked a
country with 40 times their GNP that was capable of building 20 times more
aircraft carriers than they could, and why they resorted to mass suicide
attacks. The U.S. would never do that! I would not call that "good" but it
is explicable.
If present day U.S. military intelligence agencies and policy makers do not
embrace cultural relativism in their efforts to deal with Mid-Eastern
cultures and terrorism, the war is as good as lost. To see what I mean,
read the book "Imperial Hubris," written the top CIA terrorism expert. You
cannot ask for a more authoritative view.
People should not casually misuse technical words from important academic
fields, or invent new meanings, or politicize academic subjects. They
should not presume they know more than the experts. That's the whole
trouble with cold fusion -- it isn't that experts are wrong; the problems
are caused by know-it-all idiots at the APS who jump to conclusions.
"Cultural relativity" is a vital concept.
In 1979, Senator Proxmire attacked a grant given to an anthropologist who
had spent ~$50,000 on a study of mid-eastern and Himalayan religion. She
demonstrated that religious practices were strengthening and being
invigorated in response to exposure to Western civilization, Hollywood, and
other U.S. influences. She discussed the likelihood of a backlash. Proxmire
said the U.S. government has no business spending money investigating the
religious beliefs of obscure people 10,000 miles away in countries we have
nothing to do with. A few months later, the Iranian Revolution erupted. It
destroyed U.S. policy in the Mideast, destroyed the Carter presidency, cost
us billions of dollars, and set in motion the instability and terrorism we
face today. It was caused, in large part, by a religious backlash against
Western influence. The subject of that obscure academic thesis turned out
to be vital to U.S. foreign policy for the next 30 years, and our ignorance
of that subject area has cost us several thousand lives and at least $500
billion so far. I believe Proxmire later had the good grace to apologize to
the anthropologist, but as far as I can tell, present day political leaders
still know nothing about other cultures, and nothing about anthropology,
and their they are still making drastic errors that any undergrad would
warn against.
- Jed
- OFF TOPIC Cultural relativity Jed Rothwell
-
