QandO
Questions and Observations| « The Abu Ghraib Report | Main | the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release » |
|
August 27, 2004 Well "Duh"! Another from the liberal side of the fence has a revelation on the order of a "blinding flash of the obvious". Joan Ryan of the SFGate tells us: As a good San Franciscan, I swallowed my judgment as I watched the Muslim women move through the malls and restaurants like shadows of their husbands and sons and young daughters. If I have learned anything in two decades in the Bay Area, it is tolerance for the customs of other cultures and religions. You see making a judgement means having to determine whether something is good or bad. And that then requires the "thinker" to determine whether their culture is "better" or "worse" than the culture being judged. Much to , er, judgmental. Its an article of faith among many liberals that intolerance is perhaps the greatest of secular sins. The "thinking" is all cultures are equal, and to judge one as superior to another is to be intolerant, and thus narrow minded, parochial and partisan. It is to miss out on the richness of cultural diversity and the lessons we can learn from others. Well I would agree that there's much to be said for many cultures and I wouldn't doubt we can learn from other cultures as well, but does that mean I must consider a culture which holds its women in virtual slavery, to be equal to a culture that demands the same rights for its women as it does its men? I suppose that depends on my view on freedom, women and a whole raft of other things doesn't it? But regardless of what my views might be, I'm going to judge, one way or the other, whether a culture's treatment of women is "good" or "bad" according to what standards? The standards of the culture which supports (and shaped) my views. What our lib friends tell us is that any "judgement" of another culture is wrong. In other words they ask us to abandon the views which have been shaped by our culture and to view other cultures in a value-neutral sort of way. To acccept other cultures as being "as good as" ours, even if we don't agree with the basic precepts or principles of that culture. Well you know what, that's just not human nature. Time to be forthright. I am and always have been intolerant of many things, and I plan on remaining that way. It is through intolerance and discrimination that I make many daily decisions concerning the conduct of my life. So sue me. And even worse, I suppose, I find some cultures to be far superior to others. They're shrieking in Berkley! For instance, I'm intolerant of a culture which will stone a woman to death for being unfaithful and write the guy's infidelity off as "guys will be guys and just can't help themselves". A culture which treats that sort of offense as an offense to be settled between the two people and provides for them to do so legally is far superior. I'm intolerant of a culture which finds male children superior to female children. I find far superior the culture that views both male and female children as equal gifts and treats them as such. I'm intolerant of cultures which place their women in such a subserviant and degraded place that they're virtual slaves. I find far superior the culture which sees males and females as equals both in the law and through rights. I'm intolerant of a culture which classifies and treats other human beings as inferior simply because of their race, sex or religion. The superior culture would treat all people, regardless of race, sex or religion as equals. Those are just a few. And, somehow I figured all of this out all by myself years ago. For Joan Ryan, the apparent revelation and conversion came late in life and was made on a very recent trip to the UAE where an honest to goodness "different culture" stared her right in the face. She apparently had a rough time applying the value-neutral "tolerance" template to what she saw and learned. We cannot force another country to change its values and customs so they better reflect our own. But we don't have to accept them, either. Some customs and values are not worthy of our tolerance. Welcome to the real world, Joan. Maybe we ought to make the UAE a "must go" destination on the liberal travelogue in the future. |
There is Tolerance and then there is Relativism.
Relativism holds that all values/cultures/etc are morally equivalent. Their ways are just as good as our ways and so attempting to change them is inexcusable. Under this framework intolerance of others and their ways is the ultimate transgression. A lot of this sort of thing is the result of defining morality and ethics by social norms. Once you have to choose between social groups you no longer have a social norm and so the most reasonable thing to do is refuse to decide.
Tolerance on the other hand can be willing to make value judgements. If you tolerate someone it does not mean they are right or you agree with them or you think they are equivalent. It means you are willing to put up with your differences for whatever reason. This reason may be a greater good like peace or may be out of uncertainty regarding the correctness of your own position.
Someone can be tolerant and belief in absolutes, but that is impossible for a Relativist.
Am I an Absolutist? Sometimes... ;)
Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at August 27, 2004 02:35 PM
Jeff: You make a good point. Its just another example where our language has been hijacked.
Tolerance now means "value-neutral". Intolerance is now synonymous with "judgemental". Your explanation of true tolerance is well made as is your characterization of "relativism" redefined as "tolerance".
Posted by: McQ at August 27, 2004 02:45 PM
The writer Josh McDowell in his book "The New Tolerance" makes the point that the definition of the word "tolerance" has changed. Jeff wrote about the old (and I think proper) defintion, McQ about the new.
Posted by: Rory Daulton at August 27, 2004 02:58 PM
Maybe we ought to make the UAE a "must go" destination on the liberal travelogue in the future.
Jewish liberals, of course, will have to stay home...
Posted by: shark at August 27, 2004 03:17 PM
What's So Great About America by Dinesh D'Souza makes the same attack on multiculturalism and the insistence that all cultures are equal. His, very simplistic but very obvious and easy to understand arguement is basically this:
There must be something in the human spirit that intrinsicaly proves freedom to be a superior value to anything else. Otherwise people would be migrating to Dubai, Moscow and Bangalore. Instead they are migrating to Los Angeles, New York and Idaho. If all cultures are equal, why would people show such a strong preference for freedom?
I can't personally agree with a moral ethic that is based entirely on personal preference, but if you read the whole book you find that Sousa's ideas aren't that shallow.
Posted by: Erik Sargent at August 27, 2004 03:46 PM
You KNOW what I'm going to say, here, don't you?
Same thing I've said for YEARS.. and it's right under my smiling face on my blog template...
"Remember; those who tolerate everything, stand for nothing. What do YOU stand for?"
The left, with people like the one you've quoted here, are just starting to understand this point... It's not about tolerance, of things that are simply different.. and never has been. It's having the courage to stand up and say "That I will not tolerate.. that is evil'. To do so is usually not popular. But then, who, doing wrong, likes to be told they're wrong?
All cultures are not equal. The sooner we figure that out the better we and the rest of the world will fare. And we'd better figure it out damned soon, because those people the left considers us 'equal' with, are seeking our destruction, and are able to move toward doing so becauuse of our "tolerance".
Think about it.
Posted by: Bithead at August 27, 2004 04:02 PM
I am just a simple fellow...no nuances about tolerance here. And all I know is I like the way we live here.
But I will just come out and say that Islam is not a religion of peace. It is fucking hideous. Having read a lot of the Quran, I am pretty well convinced it is a ideology contrived by an Arab megalomaniac to subjugate people. Oh its great, if you are an Arab male muslim.
Everyone else...well, you are second rate at best, and worse if you choose not to believe that Islam is the one true religion.
The problem is, very few people in our country, liberal, conservative, or whatever, really know that.
Posted by: Mr. K at August 27, 2004 06:11 PM
I bought What's So Great About America to listen to for a road trip I had. It was so good I listened to it again on the way back.
Posted by: Frank Castle at August 27, 2004 06:58 PM
Muslims are hell on gays. Imagine the monstrous migration of gays across the Atlantic when the muslims take over Europe. The cultural impact will be every bit as large as the migration of European scientists before and during WWII.
Posted by: RB at August 27, 2004 07:50 PM
Actually, I'll jump in as the token relativist here.
I believe morality--in the larger, universal sense--is relative. Personal morality, however, cannot be relative.
Joe can believe it is immoral to do XYZ, while Susie does not. Their respective moralities are relative to each other.
However, Joe cannot think XYZ is both immoral and moral. In that sense, it is absolute.
Similarly, different cultures have different moral values. They can be different, and yet self-consistent.
In the end, all this relativism comes down to the same thing to which conflicts always come down....force. One set of moral values is going to win over the other. (or, more likely, both sets of values will evolve to an evolutionary equilibrium)
Posted by: Jon Henke at August 27, 2004 08:12 PM
I actually took a course in college titled "Cultural Relativism." Aced it, too.
And, yet, I believe in good and evil.
There are belief systems where human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism are accepted as a matter of course. Cultures where there is a self-consistent set of moral values says that's perfectly fine -- helps the grass grow.
There are even situations where this may seem like a good idea -- high birthrate, low infant mortality, severe dietary deficiencies. You could construct a science-fiction novel around a bunch of colonists forced into such a practice for survival's sake. Morals don't matter if you're extinct.
But to continue such an abhorrent practice when the imperative is gone, or to take it up in the absence of such an imperative, is just plain evil.
Cultural relativism is for those who can't do better; the helpless; unable to strive to the good, choosing the lesser of evils.
Which, by the way, illustrates an interesting point. I used to feel some degree of sympathy with the Chechen rebels who engaged in terrorism against the Russians -- but since they invaded Dagestan, they're only getting what's coming to them. The Palestinians of 1948 were poor unfortunates who might be excused for striking out against the Israelis who were in land once thought their own -- but now they're a bunch of murderers railing against people who have done more to develop the land in 60 years than they did in the previous 600. And, of course, the college-educated Arab playboys of al-Qaeda are completely beneath contempt.
There comes a time when the mantle of victimhood can no longer cover horrible deeds -- and, not coincidentally, this is the same time that cultural relativism ceases to obscure the difference between what is right and what is wrong.
Posted by: cthulhu at August 27, 2004 10:19 PM
It's hard to believe that at one time the superiority of our culture made slavery an easy sell. And being male had certain advantages that are no longer. Our Civil Rights struggle has to be one of the best weapons we have in the war of ideas. We've made some improvements, in my opinion. If you think so too, thank a liberal.
Posted by: Wm D at August 27, 2004 10:22 PM
WmD: Do yourself a favor and research how the Voting Rights act of '64 came to pass. If you do it honestly, you won't be thanking a liberal.
Posted by: McQ at August 27, 2004 10:30 PM
I hope you're not expecting me to find that the Democratic Party contained remnants from its post-Civil War white supremacy days.
Posted by: Wm D at August 27, 2004 11:31 PM
Abe Lincoln, founder of the civil rights movement, was a republican.
Posted by: Mr. K at August 28, 2004 09:40 AM
Actually what you'll find is the Republican party is why it passed. That's also true of the Civil Rights act of '65. Without them, neither passed, because in and of themselves, the Democrats couldn't muster the number of votes to do so even though they were the majority in Congress.
You'll also find that it was Bill Clinton's mentor and Al Gore's daddy who led the filibuster against it.
So, in point of fact, without the Repulicans in Congress, neither would have passed. And LBJ thanked the Republicans for doing so.
History ... its all there.
Try it some time.
Posted by: McQ at August 29, 2004 10:34 AM
That's what I thought you'd say. Don't get hung up over party names. There's a reason the once solid Democrat South is now Republican. It's because Republican's represent their cultural values like Strom Thurmond's Democrats used to. Back in Lincoln's day, Massachussetts Republicans were the Massachussetts Liberals of their day. They said, go burn down a black church...or vote for the Democratic candidate, same difference. Try some history yourself. So like I said, thank a liberal.
Posted by: Wm D at August 30, 2004 12:47 AM