One of the mantras of the "diversity" movement in America and the West is that all cultures are equal. The basic idea is that each culture is an adaptation to a particular environment. Therefore no culture is inherently preferable to another. The political significance of this is that all cultures are equally deserving of respect. The goal of education becomes one of inculcating in young people a respect for all the cultures of the world. By learning that our own culture is not superior, we also become less racist and bigoted toward other cultures.
This doctrine of cultural equality--or more precisely cultural relativism--sounds good when we are considering the quaint folkways of other cultures.
Undergraduates at Yale write papers noting "Who is to say that the Western practice of inventing new technologies is superior to the kangaroo-tracking techniques of the Australian aborigines?" Meanwhile the best students at Stanford can be heard opining that "Shakespeare may have had a rich and supple vocabulary, but let's remember that Eskimos have twenty seven words for 'snow.'"
Then comes a report like the one in Canada about the Muslim father who killed his sixteen-year-old daughter because she didn't want to wear a headscarf. Now it should be noted that the Koran does not mandate that Muslims wear the veil or hijab. These head coverings, however, have come to symbolize modesty in the Islamic world. And Muslim immigrants often bring with them their cultural expectations when they come to America.
Apparently the daughter, Aqsa Parvez, could not convince her parents that her head should be uncovered. She would wear Muslim dress out of the house and then change when she was out of her parents' sight. Perhaps this deception was discovered. Apparently the father Muhammad Parvez was enraged. According to police, he beat the girl so badly that she succumbed to injuries and died. Now the father is charged with murder and the older brother is charged with obstructing police.
I'm waiting to hear from the liberal champions of diversity on this one. Will they say, "Sure, we may not approve of beating one's daughter to death over a headscarf but let's remember that in other cultures they see it very differently. Why should we impose our parochial Western morality on others?" In Canada there may be judges crazy enough to let the murderer walk free. In the United States, I suspect we won't hear too much of this. The reason is that the American brand of cultural relativism is basically a fraud. It's a device to undermine and attack Western institutions and practices. Yet cultural relativism is quietly abandoned when it produces results that liberals don't like.
Reader Comments ( Page 26 of 26)
376. As usual, Dinesh is right on the money. Those of you who "don't get it"....well, you're just not trying now.....are you?
Cee at 3:43PM on Dec 15th 2007
377. Hello Cee,
It is obvious many of us have gotten into pissing contests at times oustside of what Mr. D'Souza is trying to point out. If all of us were in Iran, we would not be posting the way we are. I believe that the American culture is superior to most, and equal to a few. But there are many inadequacies in our culture.
The example of the girl in Canada murdered by her father is acceptable in the radical Islamic community. But we have similar beliefs in the U.S. When women are 2nd class citizens in any society, it promotes the acceptable murder in a a society.
For myself, I do not want my daughter to be marginalised, and educated to be 2nd class (feel the same about race).
It seems to me, most radicals in any group want to eliminate and destroy all that don't agree with their beliefs. The radicals all want to be on top dictating how to live.
JefFlyingV at 4:24PM on Dec 15th 2007
378. "Enough with the Rodenberryesque view of the world, not all cultures and peoples are up to speed with our culture"
----------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RIGHT! Some are not believing supernatural stories from the 1st century.
By the way, if it wasn't for cultural relatievism there would be no melting pot, would there?
Linda at 4:45PM on Dec 15th 2007
379.
I am really disappointed in all of you. Doesn't one respondent have the intellect to repond to the following that I posted a few days ago? Or, are you just a bunch of blogger blabbers?
And as for the foul language, com'on. Grow up.
"What we are seeing here is the struggle for a new ethic to replace the old. This two way debate shows the first glimmers of it. It speaks to a new secular and religious ethic. It is an ethic that undermines many of our society’s assumptions. It forces us to make hard choices that run against these assumptions. One of these assumptions is that religion is good and all Abrahamic religious belief as it stands is inherently moral. The new ethic says this is not so. It says that our Abrahamic religions are in many ways not moral at all. The God they worship is and never was moral. Another says that non belief is the solution. Recent history from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia has told us this is not so. Another says unhindered capital markets are the best way to exploit and allocate world resources. The new ethic says this is not so. Capital markets must serve humanity in the broadest sense and can not be allowed to exploit people to their detriment or earthly resources to the detriment of the planet. Another says that the market should determine income distribution. The new ethic says this is not so. Income should be reasonably and equitably distributed. Another says war is a pre emptive option. The new ethic says this is not so. War is only an option in self defense when all diplomacy fails. Another says some humans are inherently not equal to other humans. The new ethic says this is not so. All humans have the same rights. It says every human is inherently equal to every other. It says this includes access to equal health care and education. Another says unhindered population growth is a human right. The new ethic says this is not so. It says bringing children into the world is not a right, it is a responsibility. Population growth must be controlled and can not exceed resource availability. I say to both camps; let’s move on from this present academic child’s play and have some serious discussion.:
As a starter, go to my Web site www.InquiryAbraham.com David Anderson
David Anderson at 8:20PM on Dec 16th 2007
380. I says ofcourse all cultures ain't equal cuz my wife went down to da gynocologist and they did a culture and it was quite different from the culture she had several years ago when she was pregnant. So, whats the big fuss , you see my point, different times and different cultures. So, shutup unless knows what your talkin about!
Timo at 4:18AM on Dec 17th 2007
381. so let's get something straight.
god is our almighty all-loving father.
we are all his children.
therefore god loves us all.
so why does god lay back sitting on his hands while his children gleefully find new and ingenious ways to torture, kill or otherwise harm each other?
kevin at 12:18AM on Dec 22nd 2007
382. While the Muslim father is obviously a monsterous person by any standard, it is also true throughout history that religious zeal has been the driving motive behind endless violence, persecution and numbingly mindless conflicts of all sorts. All cultures are not equal- in a real sense, how could they be?- but it is my view that those that use theological justifications for violence are among the worst.
C Boyd at 10:12AM on Dec 20th 2007
383.
What we are seeing here is the struggle for a new ethic to replace the old. I say to all camps; let’s move on from this present academic child’s play and have some serious discussion
David Anderson at 4:51AM on Dec 20th 2007
384. David Anderson's comments are very interesting, and, as far as believers go, very refreshing in their open-mindedness. However, I must take issue with the desciption of Nazi Germany as "non-believing". Besides the fact that the self-image of Nazis - like neo-Nazis today - was "Christian", the Nazis clearly believed in certain ideas. What baffles me most about religion as we now experience it in the world is the need people have to derive their ethical ideas from it. It is possible for a non-religious person to have moral and ethical ideas. 2007 represents a "high water mark" for global philanthropy aimed at eradicating deadly diseases that afflict children in many poor places. The people giving the most money are not religious - they declare themsleves as athiest or agnostic. The reason they cite for their donations is that the concept of all lives being of equal value is valid to them. One can arrive at this conclusion through humna decency and intelligence, possibly with a "boost" from genetic science wherein we know for a fact that all humans are very similar to each other. Consider this recognition as opoposed to the beleif of many that God dispenses genetic gifts (talents) to some and apparently(to them) dispenses lethal intestinal diseases to others. Such a God would be cruel, idiotic or both. But many people worship this very "God".
C Boyd at 11:09AM on Dec 20th 2007
385. Also, I have posted a few comments, but have not received a password. Can anyohne help?
C Boyd at 11:08AM on Dec 20th 2007
386.
C Boyd has raise an important issue. Has the new ethic passed over the Torah and Christian New Testament. Even if we "borrow" from these scriptures, don't we risk borrowing the wrong bits and pieces. Has the time come for a new ethic. Let me explain from a chapter in my new book. I quote:
One of these assumptions is that all Abrahamic religious belief as it stands is inherently moral. The new ethic says this is not so. It says that our Abrahamic religions are in many ways not moral at all. Another says that unhindered capital markets are the best way to exploit and allocate world resources. The new ethic says this is not so. Capital markets must serve humanity in the broadest sense. They can not be allowed to exploit natural resources nor human resources to their detriment. Another says that the market should determine income distribution. The new ethic says this is not so. All work should be valued; but, income should be reasonably and equitably distributed according not only to level of contribution but also to need. Another says some humans are inherently superior to other humans by way of status and should be given a more
advantageous start in life. The new ethic says this is not so. The new ethic says every human should be offered the same start in life. It says every human is born inherently equal to every other. It says this includes access to equal health care and education. This includes advanced education. Another says unhindered population growth is a human right. The new ethic says this is not so. It says bringing children into the world is not a right, it is a responsibility of both parent and society. Population growth must be controlled. It can not be allowed to exceed resource availability. Another says war is a pre emptive option. The new ethic says this is not so. War is only an option in self defense and when all diplomacy fails.
David Anderson
David Anderson at 9:50AM on Dec 25th 2007