[Chimaera182]

I, too, am not familiar with that show.

Originally Posted by dragon wench

Not to sound overly simplistic, but I think the scene you describe aptly reflects that humanity, despite all of its so-called "evolution," (or perhaps because of it) exists in a morally and ethically primitive state.
Too many cultures are intolerant of others, too many cultures claim "superiority." We continue to go to war.... often over cultural difference.

Too many cultures have to be intolerant of others and have to be superior to others; otherwise, why would you want to live in said culture? It's the same with nationalism: you have to be proud of your country and willing to do what it takes to keep your country affloat, otherwise, why bother living there? Unfortunately, the feeling of cultural superiority does often lead to war because those of the culturally superior race are "better" and must impart their "wisdom" on those less fortunate. This is one of several justifications people have used to justify war in the past. It's also the job of missionaries to help those "backward" cultures find a better life.

Originally Posted by Aegis

I believe it is innate human behaviour to feel superior. We believe we are the only reasoning and rational beings on the planet. We believe that because we created tools, we are above animals. Yet, without such tools, we are pretty low on the food chain, if you think about it. So, how is it we can be the superior race? The only talent we hold above other animals is the ability to adapt. While it is a strong talent, it is hardly the superior one.

Probably. And a lot of people tend to believe we are the only reasoning and rational beings in the universe; the idea that someone else might be out there and might be better than us is blasphemy of the highest order. And yes, if we didn't have our highly-vaunted tools, we would be pretty low on the food chain. In our arrogance, we claimed the mantle of superior species on the planet and we have claimed this planet as ours. And yet, I'm reminded of a quote in C.S. Lewis' Perelandra: "How could it (the planet Perelandra [Venus]) be made for them when most of it, in fact, was uninhabitable by them?" We had to rape the world and change it with our tools to be more habitable for us.

Originally Posted by Dottie

@CM: What bothers me even more is the inability of popular media to realistically depict any other culture at all. Usually they just use attributes, like they perform funny rituals, they wear green hats, and they have a queen. Very rarely do you see a portrait of a foreign cultures more basic values, or a more elaborate description.

You can say that to be culturally narrow minded is a feature of humanity, but I think it's important to point out that how much of it there is varies a lot between human and human, and also between culture and culture.

Generally I think that traveling and trading cultures are less narrow minded than those who do not travel, and I think that conquering cultures are in general more narrow minded and cultures which like to polarize are generally more narrow minded. The same applies also to individuals.

This is definitely an issue, and one that's been present in human life for pretty much the whole of our existence. We always depict other cultures unrealistically, and even make them look barbaric. They perform strange, bizarre rituals and wear weird clothing, and they're just "odd." Such cultural depictions, taken to an extreme, are what people like Hitler used to justify the mass extermination of the Jews; they're weird, they caused Germany's downfall, they're leeches who only suckle the life's blood of the country and don't give back, and they rape our women and weaken the "superior race" as a whole. Gay culture, too, has suffered much under the weight of the "superior" straight culture: gays are abominations, they're weird, they rape children. The culturally-superior tend to demonize those of lesser cultures, not only to boost their own culture but to justify attacking those lesser cultures.

As for trading cultures, I'm not ready to give them the benefit of the doubt yet. Maybe deep down they still don't like the people they trade with, but because they're out to make a profit, it's in their best interests to trade with anyone they can. Besides, if said culture can only trade with one particular trading culture, then that culture can gouge the "undesirable" culture for all they're worth.

Originally Posted by Phreddie

we also need a more specific example, the one provided worked, for a time, but now because of how deepthis thread is going we ned more details before we can go in and discuss this at any length.

Hrm. How about Star Trek: Deep Space Nine? There was one episode where the crew were stranded on a planet and had the Jem'Hadar over their heads. One of the crew members had been shot and was dying. Miles O'Brien (human) continually told the crewman that he would be okay, that he would live throught his; Worf (Klingon) felt it was dumb of O'Brien to comfort the man, because it was clear he was going to die. To comfort the dying man and "lie" to him that he would survive was just wrong to him, but Miles felt it was wrong of Worf to "lie" to the man and tell him he would die. In the end, Miles and Worf got into a heated argument, and the man wound up dying anyway.

In Klingon culture, it is taught to expect death and not run from it, but face it. You have to be ready to die because the Klingons are a race of warriors; they're motto: "It is a good day to die." In human culture, like O'Brien, living is much better than dying. Humans try to preserve life, and do whatever necessary to keep living long, full, healthy lives. It's a lot like the Stargate example in the focus on death.