|
Rigged Death Trap posted:
Out of curiosity do you have any examples of a nation not founded on and/or defined by "western" enlightenment principles that has or had equal social toleration (particularly where sexual minorities are concerned) and equal respect for individual rights when compared side-by-side with the modern-liberal-democracy baseline? (p.s. some kind of historical example of socially acceptable cross-dressing within, say, the confines of a patriarchal caste system, doesn't loving count. Im asking if any non-colonized nation, extant or not, offers its citizens the same latitude to citizens to make decisions about their personal lives and familial relations as a westernized liberal democracy edit: (p.p.s. please don't use the goddamn Ottoman Empire with their "we tolerate them queers so long as they keep their activities on the down low and don't challenge our state religion" policies either - especially since that latitude was only for homosexual men of a particular urban social class. I'm talking about actual, legal individual rights to live in a way that clashes with conservative social mores. It is my understanding those rights are almost nonexistent outside societies where enlightenment values have gained control of government, but by all means, prove me wrong) And what is your evidence for the anti-communalist values of liberalism (broadly defined) not leading to increased tolerance for sexual minorities and other historic pariahs? The map on wikipedia showing which nations offer full rights to homosexuals shows that it is almost completely exclusive to western or highly westernized and liberal countries None of this is to say that the specific phenomenon of 19th century European colonialism and exploitation wasn't unjust. Only that the injustice of the general process of westernization should not be overgeneralized from that example. In the 21st century context, it is generally a positive. (p.p.p.s. laying all of the blame for 'kill the gays' laws at the feet of bigoted western missionaries is almost exactly the same as saying that the holocaust was caused by the unique evil of Hitler alone and had nothing to do with the centuries-running antisemitism of German culture) Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 2, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Just close the can again, you know this is an asinine question. Why is it an asinine question? Would you excoriate a transman for contributing to the historical oppression of misogyny and patriarchy? If not, why not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i had no idea that there was this kind of.... gradient. i didn't realize you would be treated worse the blacker your skin got, even by your own race In Brasil people often categorize themselves by where they fall on the spectrum of white (light skinned) to black (dark skinned). It's literally part of the government census in some cases. Colorism is noxious and super pervasive across the African diaspora (as well as in certain Asian, Indigenous, etc cultures) and although I've never really been subject to intra-racial abuse or ostracizing due to color (in the spectrum of dark-skinned to light-skinned, I'm pretty much in the middle), I'm glad to see it getting more attention.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I think we should probably leave the discredited corpse of the unilinear model of cultural evolution undisturbed in its casket where it belongs. The idea that all progress takes place along a singular trajectory with western liberal society as its defined end-point is a spurious one and arbitrarily positioning prescriptive goalposts that favour such a view is not a good strategy. Also, using the ongoing struggle for LGBT rights and recognition, which is not yet won even in so-called "enlightened, western" societies as the go-to metric can only give us some very misleading ideas of what a developed, progressive society is. Just because a law is on the books does not mean that a society is welcoming or accepting to LGBT people. France decriminalised homosexuality as far back as the revolution, but it would be idiotic to pretend that widespread acceptance of LGBT lifestyles there was the norm for anything more than the last twenty years or so, if that. Western liberal society, for most of its lifespan, has actually been actively hostile to LGBT people and it has chiefly been through the efforts of actual LGBT people - rather than paternalistic, hegemonic western governments - that LGBT rights have attained the recognition they have done in recent years. LGBT people in developing, non-western nations are undertaking similar struggles and while we should all stand in solidarity with them, they have not expressed a need for a white saviour to swoop in and impose their own decontextualised one-size-fits-all values in a reiteration of empire's civilising mission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
As opposed to non-Western cultures which practice stuff like FGM? This need by white leftists to browbeat themselves is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:As opposed to non-Western cultures which practice stuff like FGYM? Every society has its problems, but proposing a transplant of western cultural norms as a panacea is misguided at best. Underlying reasons for social ills like FGM and persecution of sexual minorities are best combated by a contextual approach adapted to the circumstances of the society where they're taking place and implemented by people directly invested in their outcomes. Imposing western values from above invites a culture-shocked backlash that would likely undo whatever meager good such initiatives could hope to deliver and give ammunition to a culture's homegrown reactionaries, as happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Boko Haram in Nigeria. If reform and modernisation is seen as the intrusive machinations of an imperial aggressor or coloniser it can't take hold and is doomed to failure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think we should probably leave the discredited corpse of the unilinear model of cultural evolution undisturbed in its casket where it belongs. The idea that all progress takes place along a singular trajectory with western liberal society as its defined end-point is a spurious one and arbitrarily positioning prescriptive goalposts that favour such a view is not a good strategy. Also, using the ongoing struggle for LGBT rights and recognition, which is not yet won even in so-called "enlightened, western" societies as the go-to metric can only give us some very misleading ideas of what a developed, progressive society is. Just because a law is on the books does not mean that a society is welcoming or accepting to LGBT people. France decriminalised homosexuality as far back as the revolution, but it would be idiotic to pretend that widespread acceptance of LGBT lifestyles there was the norm for anything more than the last twenty years or so, if that. Western liberal society, for most of its lifespan, has actually been actively hostile to LGBT people and it has chiefly been through the efforts of actual LGBT people - rather than paternalistic, hegemonic western governments - that LGBT rights have attained the recognition they have done in recent years. LGBT people in developing, non-western nations are undertaking similar struggles and while we should all stand in solidarity with them, they have not expressed a need for a white saviour to swoop in and impose their own decontextualised one-size-fits-all values in a reiteration of empire's civilising mission. Well, I can't exactly argue against the potshots you're taking at western liberalism since they are technically true (though there are degrees of "hostility to LGBT people", and saying that it was 'chiefly through the efforts of actual LGBT people' that said rights were established isn't exactly wrong but misleading as all hell in the context you're using it - do you mean to imply that, say, everyone who voted for Harvey Milk was gay, or even a majority of said voters? Were all of the legislators who passed hate crime legislation either gay or solely motivated by direct pressure from gay constitutients?) But I'm interested to hear what you think this beautiful, unique alternative to pernicious "paternalistic, hegemonic western governments" bringing down the gavel of law on homophobic institutions would look like. What examples can you give? Do you think that the hesitancy of LGBT persons in the developing world to advocate forthrightly for an individual-rights-based government might have something to do with tactical considerations and the necessity of survival when surrounded by millions of potentially murderous zealots without any strong legal protections to shield them? When people in the 21st century talk about "western liberalism" and "westernization" as a model for governments, they basically mean a form of government where individual rights take precedence over community standards. If you're going to have a society and government where conservative religious views inform the laws that are made and the patriarchal family and village are legally enshrined as the ultimate good and a sacrosanct cultural unit, I feel that the onus is on you to explain to me how LGBT rights and acceptance comparable to those enjoyed in the west are going to be possible. If we're to talk about extant societies instead of pie-in-the-sky theoretical utopianism - the nations that exist today, in 2016 - are there any nations aside from western liberal democracies that you would call a remotely acceptable "defined end-point", as you put it? Or do you mean to say you believe that the (admittedly unfortunate) injustices suffered by LGBT persons and other social minorities in western liberal democracies is equal and equivalent to the blatant oppression of them that exists everywhere that community standards are valued preferentially to individual rights? Because if that is the point you're getting at with all this talk of arbitrary goalposts, I don't really have anything to say in response except "gently caress YOU".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Every society has its problems, but proposing a transplant of western cultural norms as a panacea is misguided at best. Underlying reasons for social ills like FGM and persecution of sexual minorities are best combated by a contextual approach adapted to the circumstances of the society where they're taking place and implemented by people directly invested in their outcomes. Imposing western values from above invites a culture-shocked backlash that would likely undo whatever meager good such initiatives could hope to deliver and give ammunition to a culture's homegrown reactionaries, as happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Boko Haram in Nigeria. If reform and modernisation is seen as the intrusive machinations of an imperial aggressor or coloniser it can't take hold and is doomed to failure. "essentialism essentialism essentialism ESSEN-TIAL-ISM" The injustice of "the intrusive machinations of an imperial aggressor or coloniser" pales in comparison to the horrific injustice which has been endemic in the nations you mention for hundreds if not thousands of years. The desirable endpoint is for those homegrown reactionaries to all be dead (preferably of old age, but as circumstances dictate)- and failing that, for them to be frozen out of the processes of government. What elements of recent history convince you that any compromise is possible or desirable with the sort of people who would join Boko Haram or the Taliban? Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Every society has its problems, but proposing a transplant of western cultural norms as a panacea is misguided at best. Underlying reasons for social ills like FGM and persecution of sexual minorities are best combated by a contextual approach adapted to the circumstances of the society where they're taking place and implemented by people directly invested in their outcomes. Imposing western values from above invites a culture-shocked backlash that would likely undo whatever meager good such initiatives could hope to deliver and give ammunition to a culture's homegrown reactionaries, as happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Boko Haram in Nigeria. If reform and modernisation is seen as the intrusive machinations of an imperial aggressor or coloniser it can't take hold and is doomed to failure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
oh, and - TomViolence posted:Every society has its problems, but proposing a transplant of
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Quite the deluge here, so forgive me for being somewhat brief and/or glib.Liberal_L33t posted:Well, I can't exactly argue against the potshots you're taking at western liberalism since they are technically true (though there are degrees of "hostility to LGBT people", and saying that it was 'chiefly through the efforts of actual LGBT people' that said rights were established isn't exactly wrong but misleading as all hell in the context you're using it - do you mean to imply that, say, everyone who voted for Harvey Milk was gay, or even a majority of said voters? Were all of the legislators who passed hate crime legislation either gay or solely motivated by direct pressure from gay constitutients?) No, I don't mean to imply that it's only gay voters that voted for Harvey Milk or that LGBT allies are motivated solely by pressure from gay constituents. I do however think that without the efforts of LGBT activists none of the rights now enjoyed by LGBT people would even be on the agenda, never mind enshrined in law and custom. quote:But I'm interested to hear what you think this beautiful, unique alternative to pernicious "paternalistic, hegemonic western governments" bringing down the gavel of law on homophobic institutions would look like. What examples can you give? Do you think that the hesitancy of LGBT persons in the developing world to advocate forthrightly for an individual-rights-based government might have something to do with tactical considerations and the necessity of survival when surrounded by millions of potentially murderous zealots without any strong legal protections to shield them? It's absolutely true that there are systems of repression and intimidation in play in developing nations that cause barriers to open advocacy of LGBT lifestyles, but I fail to see how this problem is best combated by western cultural hegemony, which can only breed further resentment. quote:When people in the 21st century talk about "western liberalism" and "westernization" as a model for governments, they basically mean a form of government where individual rights take precedence over community standards. If you're going to have a society and government where conservative religious views inform the laws that are made and the patriarchal family and village are legally enshrined as the ultimate good and a sacrosanct cultural unit, I feel that the onus is on you to explain to me how LGBT rights and acceptance comparable to those enjoyed in the west are going to be possible. I'm not entirely convinced that individual rights should take precedence over community standards. Rather I think that community standards should incorporate and respect individual differences. A small difference, perhaps, but an important one. quote:If we're to talk about extant societies instead of pie-in-the-sky theoretical utopianism - the nations that exist today, in 2016 - are there any nations aside from western liberal democracies that you would call a remotely acceptable "defined end-point", as you put it? Or do you mean to say you believe that the (admittedly unfortunate) injustices suffered by LGBT persons and other social minorities in western liberal democracies is equal and equivalent to the blatant oppression of them that exists everywhere that community standards are valued preferentially to individual rights? Because if that is the point you're getting at with all this talk of arbitrary goalposts, I don't really have anything to say in response except "gently caress YOU". In terms of extant societies as an acceptable defined end-point? There aren't any. But that doesn't excuse or dignify the idea that extant western liberal democracies are the desirable model. Liberal_L33t posted:"essentialism essentialism essentialism ESSEN-TIAL-ISM" The argument I was making there was not a moralistic one but a pragmatic one. Neglecting the context of an individual culture and trying to apply one singular model of development universally can seem on its face to be a good idea but the terrain is often more nuanced than that. If policy is not tailored to the circumstances you hit all kinds of hidden pitfalls, as happened in the ill-fated attempts by the Bush and Obama administrations in their attempts to modernise and democratise Iraq and Afghanistan. Local ethnic or religious divides or cultural practices or the like can scupper reform and modernisation before they even begin or set the stage for failure down the line. People don't just join ISIS or the taliban or boko haram because they're irredeemable reactionaries, they see westernisation as an intrusive, colonising force threatening their culture and way of life. A more contextualised and homebrewed strategy for modernisation nullifies at least some of this perception. Even the US and coalition forces in Afghanistan recognised this to a degree aand as a result employed cultural anthropologists and other social scientists to formulate a better strategy, which sadly was underutilised or went half-implemented at best. Liberal_L33t posted:oh, and - A Buttery Pastry posted:What does the mean for the imposition of "western cultural norms" on western populations? We have our own reactionaries reacting to those too, in similar ways. This is why I emphasize the desirability of a contextual strategy. In a western context, the imposition and reinforcement of western values makes sense. Where it does not make sense is in situations where the backdrop of western thought and western values is not already part of the social fabric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The irony of citing the Taliban as being the prime targets of Western cultural imperialism is that were it not for the west arming them when they were still the mujahedeen they would have been a small insurgent force crushed by the Soviets. The white man's burden went slightly awry that time. Maybe we'll get it right next time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:The irony of citing the Taliban as being the prime targets of Western cultural imperialism is that were it not for the west arming them when they were still the mujahedeen they would have been a small insurgent force crushed by the Soviets. It depends on whether you think the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was another form of cultural imperialism or not. It shouldn't be forgotten that they were also trying to impose their vision of progress and civilisation on Afghanistan, neglecting the human terrain in the process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
It obviously was. But how anyone can look at that conflict and the literal decades long shitstorm that followed afterwards and seriously think 'Military action definitely works!' is beyond me. And the situation in Africa is a tiny, tiny bit more complicated than 'Bad men called Boko Haram show up, everything is terrible', and once again an excellent example of Imperialism being a grand endeavour that only makes things better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:This is why I emphasize the desirability of a contextual strategy. In a western context, the imposition and reinforcement of western values makes sense. Where it does not make sense is in situations where the backdrop of western thought and western values is not already part of the social fabric.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That western thought and values exist as part of the social fabric does not change the fact that we're seeing a reactionary movement against western values though? Is your point that western values are so strongly a part of the social fabric (in the West) that their imposition on reactionaries is not going to create a cultural backlash big enough for us to consider not imposing them, whereas the reaction in Afghanistan is going to be of a scale that makes any attempt at imposition doomed to fail? Because otherwise the distinction is basically down to where you draw your borders. Western society has a pre-existing canon of literature, art, philosophy, poetry, music and political thought that contextualises liberal reform and allows it to take place without too much inhibition. However, somewhere like Afghanistan has an entirely different canon, with entirely different traditions of thought and art and culture that a disembodied and transplanted system of western values will not gel with nearly as readily. For instance, in our efforts at westernising Afghanistan we showed people western art like Duchamps' Fountain, utterly bereft of context, and expected them to understand it outside of the western canon that the work itself was critiquing. This nonsensical and absurd, if well-meaning, effort is but a small example of the overall approach we adopted and exemplifies how and why it failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:For instance, in our efforts at westernising Afghanistan we showed people western art like Duchamps' Fountain, utterly bereft of context, and expected them to understand it outside of the western canon that the work itself was critiquing. This nonsensical and absurd, if well-meaning, effort is but a small example of the overall approach we adopted and exemplifies how and why it failed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Out of curiosity do you have any examples of a nation not founded on and/or defined by "western" enlightenment principles that has or had equal social toleration (particularly where sexual minorities are concerned) and equal respect for individual rights when compared side-by-side with the modern-liberal-democracy baseline? Ladies and gentlemen, the preemptively moved goalpost
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:I'm sorry to pick this out when it's not the focus of the thread, but do you have a link or something about this? It sounds so incredibly stupid I'm having a hard time believing that someone, somewhere, thought the path to democracy in Afghanistan started with loving Dada. I don't know if there's anything more in-depth kicking about, but I remember there was footage of the lecture where they were showing Fountain in Adam Curtis's documentary Bitter Lake. This article touches on it briefly as a sort of defining moment of the documentary and how it expresses perfectly the confused, patronising and simplistic mindset Curtis suggests we went into Afghanistan with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Do any of you have a flicker of awareness at how gross it is to colonize a thread about race issues for this bullshit? Have your slapfight in the libertarian thread or the Freep thread or make an actual new thread. You completely killed one of the very few conversations that's ever happened in D&D that isn't about white people and you're assholes for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Do any of you have a flicker of awareness at how gross it is to colonize a thread about race issues for this bullshit? Have your slapfight in the libertarian thread or the Freep thread or make an actual new thread. You completely killed one of the very few conversations that's ever happened in D&D that isn't about white people and you're assholes for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 17:34
|
|