But you are not responding to the point I made. You say "What do you say to African women who claim that your position is an example of imperialism? " I say, the five year olds who are being butchered are not arguing that my position is an example of imperialism. The five year olds who are being butchered and who survive will probably reconcile themselves to their pain by calling themselves "virtuous" according to their cultural norms. It is better to call yourself virtuous than to call yourself crippled. In the name of that virtue, they will then butcher their daughters. I think it is possible for me to talk to the women of such a society about this practice from another position that that of representative imperialist. I think I can talk to them about it from my situation as a woman who has not been crippled in this way. Perhaps I have been crippled in different ways. We can compare notes. Then we can see what happens.
Joanna
Miles Jackson wrote:
>>How do you resolve problems that stem from cultural/historical
>>pathologies? Surely, in the west, the "belief" that property is more
>>important than life is also a pathology. And that belief is responsible
>>for as great a degree of soul and body murder as the sexual butchery
>>that organizes tribal life in Africa. This is not a trivial question and
>>the solutions aren't easy. But I refuse, refuse, refuse to accept a
>>cultural relativism that basically just sweeps everything under the rug.
>>
>>Joanna
>>
>>
>
>I guess I'm more cautious about assuming my moral superiority. What
>do you say to African women who claim that your position is an
>example of imperialism? Once again, the noble whites have to
>demonstrate to backwards Africans how to live in a "civilized"
>way.
>
>This issue is way more complicated than you want it to be:
>substitute any of the cultural practices we engage in for
>FGM: do you honestly believe some group (with more
>military might or financial power than we have) should dictate
>to us--for our own good--that we abandon something we consider to
>be important to our way of life?
>
>Moral standards are not self-evident or universal; this has
>been well documented in historical and anthropological
>research. I guess people don't think through the
>consequences of this: if there is no universally agreed
>upon gold standard for morality, then it is incoherent
>for anyone to claim that the moral standards in one
>society should be used to judge the behavior in another.
>
>Cultural relativism? I guess. But I think it's important
>to keep in mind that moral certitude through the ages
>(think the Crusades, the Inquisition, the rise of the
>Nazis, Vietnam, Iraq today) have led to far more chaos
>and problems than the position I'm outlining above.
>
>Is that an argument in my favor? --Depends on your
>moral standards!
>
>Miles
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>