RE: Is Islamophobia Justified?
January 5, 2015 at 12:22 am
(This post was last modified: January 5, 2015 at 12:26 am by tantric.)
You really have to understand the context of the question. Only in a world where Cultural Relativism is the default stance would this come up. Somehow the base assumption is now that all cultures are somehow equal, or have equal right to exist, or somesuch, originating in idiotic Western notions of protecting indigenous cultures.
Assuming we can define a culture as an independent entity, can we then say that some culture are better than others and by what standard? This is where all of out Good Liberal alarms go off. Who are we to judge? Isn't this exactly the same logic that leads to Nazism and pogroms?
Well, I have a standard - human rights. I would like to make the radical assertion that human rights are for humans, all of them, regardless of their culture. Some cultures gross violate human rights. Since there are no current worshipers of LeftHummingbird or SmokingMirror, I'll use the 'Aztec' culture as an example. The polity of Tenochtitlan was maintained by human sacrifice, and (please don't pick nits) a fair amount of cannibalism. The average person stood a good chance of being brutally and sadistically murdered and quiet possible eaten, and their 'balm' was toxic opiate-religious cocktail.
Was that culture 'bad'? I will say with no doubt at all that it was beautiful - the art, the pageantry, the symbolism, the poetry, were profound and extravagant. But they ATE PEOPLE. They walled up children in caves so they would be forced to eat each other. Not as exceptions, like we do with our serial killers, but as a part of normal sanctioned life.
Yes, it was bad. Yes, it had to be stopped. I'm not justifying the conquistadors - they would institute their own atrocities soon enough, but as human beings, I don't blame them for their reactions.
So, let's look at Dar al-Islam, objectively, as a culture. Thoughts?
Assuming we can define a culture as an independent entity, can we then say that some culture are better than others and by what standard? This is where all of out Good Liberal alarms go off. Who are we to judge? Isn't this exactly the same logic that leads to Nazism and pogroms?
Well, I have a standard - human rights. I would like to make the radical assertion that human rights are for humans, all of them, regardless of their culture. Some cultures gross violate human rights. Since there are no current worshipers of LeftHummingbird or SmokingMirror, I'll use the 'Aztec' culture as an example. The polity of Tenochtitlan was maintained by human sacrifice, and (please don't pick nits) a fair amount of cannibalism. The average person stood a good chance of being brutally and sadistically murdered and quiet possible eaten, and their 'balm' was toxic opiate-religious cocktail.
Was that culture 'bad'? I will say with no doubt at all that it was beautiful - the art, the pageantry, the symbolism, the poetry, were profound and extravagant. But they ATE PEOPLE. They walled up children in caves so they would be forced to eat each other. Not as exceptions, like we do with our serial killers, but as a part of normal sanctioned life.
Yes, it was bad. Yes, it had to be stopped. I'm not justifying the conquistadors - they would institute their own atrocities soon enough, but as human beings, I don't blame them for their reactions.
So, let's look at Dar al-Islam, objectively, as a culture. Thoughts?
My book, a setting for fantasy role playing games based on Bantu mythology: Ubantu
