Cultural dominance

[Phreddie]

It seems to me that all space dramas on tv deal with humans as being good respectful people and aliens as recently civilized half barbarians who are warriors, im begining to think that the writers for all these shows get together weekly to drink and write their shows. the only space set thing ive seen that treats evry1 fairly showing civilization of all ppl and some barbaric as it should be was Star Wars, George Lucas seem to keep that fiarly un biased towards aliens, the only biased part (the main character always being human) was becuase of techinical diffficulties whne first movies were produced, that and fan issues.

[fable]

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.

This has been the reaction through all recorded history, down through time, between cultures--the Greek word that gave us "barbarian" in the original English sense (as someone completely uncivilized) derives from the fact that foreigners to Greeks spoke like twittering birds: bar-bar-bar. This equates nicely to your funny rituals and green hats. I could even pull out a few amazing passages from the early Renaissance, in which highly intelligent cultural leaders of Christianity referred to Islam as worshipping Apollo, while Arabian folktales told of Christian religious leaders daubbing their dung on the faces of worshippers as part of the religious ceremony. Not only is it incredibly alien to be "other" rather than "us," it also gives way to a cycle of increasing alienization in anthropological terms, where the home culture seeks to find or create traits in the other culture that are more and more bizarre, regardless of lack of foundation. Thus, alienization is self-reinforcing, and the media of a given culture, from the bard in the wooden longrooms to the entertainment center in modern homes, achieves the same result whether consciously intended or not.

Popular media are a means to preserve and reinforce cultural norms, be it unintentially created by the "free market" or a well thought-out propaganda machine - the effect is not as different as many people like to believe.

Absolutely, CE. The products of a culture become the media of that culture, and interpret everything through its lens. This holds true whether the subject is news or some space opera on television.

[Chimaera182]

Originally Posted by Phreddie

It seems to me that all space dramas on tv deal with humans as being good respectful people and aliens as recently civilized half barbarians who are warriors, im begining to think that the writers for all these shows get together weekly to drink and write their shows. the only space set thing ive seen that treats evry1 fairly showing civilization of all ppl and some barbaric as it should be was Star Wars, George Lucas seem to keep that fiarly un biased towards aliens, the only biased part (the main character always being human) was becuase of techinical diffficulties whne first movies were produced, that and fan issues.

Not all. Babylon 5 didn't represent all the alien races as barbaric. The Narns were an agrarian race who recently achieved freedom from under the Centauri Republic, and appeared to act barbaric because they still felt hatred for the Centauri. The Centauri were rather advanced but their empire was waning, but they still had a decent culture. The Minbari were lightyears ahead of almost everyone, with a very strong culture, a high level of technology, and a very strong sense of who they were. The Vorlons were a mystery through most of the show, but they were the most advanced in the galaxy in culture, technology, and all the rest. It was humans who were more barbaric in Babylon 5 than the other races: humans turned in on themselves, warred among themselves, were culturally-backwards.

In Star Trek, the majority of races--albeit mostly those "inside" the Federation--were treated as equals. The Klingons, who were allies of the Federation, were still perceived as barbaric (look at the way they eat, which to us is repellant). The Cardassians and Romulans were looked at as ruthless races who were willing to do anything to further their own goals. But those races within the Federation were all "equal," they all shared the same views and goals.

[Phreddie]

thats why i said "it seems to me" i dont follow those shows, but form what ive heard from others, and what ive seen myself, it is the way they are gnerally treated. thans for giving the other side of the story.

[CM]

It was late last night that i posted this so i will explain further. I have basically an assumption which is two fold:

1. All humans feel their culture and its values are superior to those of others.
2. That on specific issues like mortality, sexuality, religion in life and others they feel they are "right" and all views that do not agree with their point of view is/are wrong and they impose these views on other people/societies/cultures.

DW and Aegis i completely agree with what you say. I however in the case of rights and their alienability aim for the ideal we are supposed to achieve. Rights are not alienable. They can not be denied. There are few that are accepted by all and you can't deny them. Be they man made or written in scripture, there are certain things you can not deny your fellow human being.

Phreddie the thing with that notion is that it breeds hatred and contempt. I completely agree that culture and society is helping in breed such ideas of superiority of values. But the issue i have is with imposing that on others. In politics as in the TV show, the views of the humans were imposed on an alien culture. Because we "humans" are better. The idea of believing you are right is an issue, but what i find abhorrent is imposing that view on other cultures and societies.

Dottie though it may vary from human to human, the underlying fundementals are the same. Very few can accept all the differences a culture has compared to their own. Media stated by yourself, CE and Fable is the main culprit in the current situation. This links in directly with the various threads we have had on stereotypes. Media defines stereotypes, but they do it in ways that is opposite of their cultural values.

If you look at all media forms of entertainment the alien races or foriegn cultures are usually the opposite of what humans are. Be it the vulcans or the klingons in Star Trek. The Communists in the 70s and 80s. The Chinese in the early 90s and now the Muslims. The most obvious examples. The place of Africans is also very stereotypical and their culture values are shown in light of what the "hollywood" culture defines as the proper one.

I will respond to the other posts sometime tomorrow. I need to get some work done.

[Aegis]

@Fas: My only question in regards to your thoughts on rights, which really is for another discussion completely, is this: If they are unalienable, why can they be taken away by one psychopath with a weapon? Or why don't they exist in nature? I believe that existence is dictated by nature. In the barest sense, if you were put into the wild, and failed to survive, would that somehoe have inflicted upon your rights? I would argue not, because in nature your rights do no exist. They matter little in the grand scheme of survival. Rights themselves are a created term and notion by humans, and thus can be alienable.

Like I said though, it's very much a topic that can spawn a whole new thread, so I won't go too much into it.

To address the main point of this thread, however...

A lot of issues have been touched on, as well as a lot of analogies and comparissons (the Star Wars one had me laughing, simply because of how xenphobic the empire is. You'll notice not a single alien exists within the service of the Empire. Humans, essentially, have conquered space ). Very few people are willing to look at the darker aspect of humanity. We hold these ideals on such a high pedestal, that we don't see the little monsters that permeate everywhere else, and this, I believe, is what Fas was talking about when he said it was innate to human behaviour.

This is something I firmly believe, too. Unlike what you said, CE, I believe that humans do have a particular mind set and behaviour bred into them, and believe this is innate in all humans. Culture and society defintily further impact this behaviour, but it can cause this behaviour to grow, if it were there to begin with. I do not, however, believe it is the dominant aspect of human behaviour, but it is the one most easily cultivated by society, specifically through, as mentioned previously, nationalistic values and ideals.

This particular aspect comes down to the very concept of nature vs. nurture. I happen to think nature tends to when out for the most part, with nurture playing the role of incubation.

[Phreddie]

Aye, on the rights thing, there are no unalienable rights, the death penalty for example severly inhibits ones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as does jail. there are certain rights that are believed to apply to all man regardless, or believed so by the majority, every culture is differnt adn so are there beliefs, meaning that everyones 'inalienable rights' are different. a mans rights can be violated by anyone, they can be alienated by anyone.

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by Phreddie

Aye, on the rights thing, there are no unalienable rights, the death penalty for example severly inhibits ones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as does jail. there are certain rights that are believed to apply to all man regardless, or believed so by the majority, every culture is differnt adn so are there beliefs, meaning that everyones 'inalienable rights' are different. a mans rights can be violated by anyone, they can be alienated by anyone.

Well, when I speak of rights, usually I'm refering to the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which is somewhat different then the poltical ones that vary from nation to nation.

[Ravager]

I think I can comment a little on the show itself...

The general thread through Stargate (SG-1 and Atlantis) is a philosophy of 'leave no-one behind', which would apply to anyone under their care.
Having an alien prepare for death may be seen as a failure and on a human POV as accepting that it's a situation that can't be solved.

Originally Posted by CM

1. All humans feel their culture and its values are superior to those of others.

You could say that was due to supporting something you understand and know over something completely foreign.

[Phreddie]

Originally Posted by Ravager

You could say that was due to supporting something you understand and know over something completely foreign.

thats true, but even when they are exposed to those cultures, even when someone takes time to try and educate them, they still (or many of them wont) refuse to change their prejudice, they mouth may say oen thing, but the heart another.

[dj_venom]

Don't watch the show, didn't watch the episode, so I don't know the facts.

Most importantly, did the alien die? I couldn't see if that was answered, if it was, my mistake, if it wasn't, then can someone please answer.

Now, I don't want to say too much because I'm waiting for the answer to my question, but...

Basically, the powers of positive thinking is amazing. Someone thinking they are going to die is much more likely to die then someone who is going to live.

So, you don't let the person know, that way they are more likely to stay alive. Also, if it's a matter of time, then it's using up this time.

Now, it might be considered as sacred, important, etc. however, you have to think, him preparing for his death might send the rest of the crew to their deaths.

What is the greater crime? One person/alien dying unprepared, or a bunch of people dying an easily avoidable death. As such, if you are going on a dangerous mission, get the rites done when you have the time, not when it's most likely.

~~~

So could someone please answer whether he lived or died...thanks .

[stramoski]

O.k., I'll give some more details...

There are a couple of aliens involved, but they're all of the same race... They are ancients, basically humans that evolved somewhere else, and much earlier than we did.

One of the ancients is on the main party, and they were all on the "puddlejumper" that was going to be torn in half and exposed to open space.

An ancient on Atlantis wanted to go over an open channel and give the "Last Rites" to the one on the ship. The base commander didn't want the crew of the puddlejumper, still furiously working to correct the problem, to be disheartened by the ritual. Also on the jumper was a human crewman who was being killed by an alien parasite, and he needed to fight to stay alive.

This, actually, is a little grayer, I think, than respecting one culture's belief.

But, as I said, I'm not unbiased myself.

P.S. Episode spoiler!

Everyone lived!!!

[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by Chimaera182

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.

There is no need to give any culture the "benefit of the doubt", I don't think one should base any opinions on such arbitrary and unreliable background. Instead, there is a large amount of anthropology and sociology to be read, and also if you like, people and places to visit. Many Westernes would be surprised if they knew more about native cultures in Africa, the Pacific Ocean or Central Asia. The human nature is not synonymous with Western culture behaviour patterns. And this takes me back to the question of "innate":

Originally Posted by CM

I have basically an assumption which is two fold:

1. All humans feel their culture and its values are superior to those of others.
2. That on specific issues like mortality, sexuality, religion in life and others they feel they are "right" and all views that do not agree with their point of view is/are wrong and they impose these views on other people/societies/cultures.

What you base these assumptions on? What evidence is there, what arguments? How do you explain that there are cultures that do not fit into these behaviour patterns? How do you explain that there are individuals in a given culture, that do not fit into these patterns?

Dottie though it may vary from human to human, the underlying fundementals are the same.

So if it may vary from individual to individual, what are the underlying fundamentals? Obviously the superiority of one's own culture cannot be innate in the human being, since all human beings do not share this view. So what then, is the underlying fundamental that often can result in culture-centric views?

Originally Posted by Aegis

Unlike what you said, CE, I believe that humans do have a particular mind set and behaviour bred into them, and believe this is innate in all humans. Culture and society defintily further impact this behaviour, but it can cause this behaviour to grow, if it were there to begin with. I do not, however, believe it is the dominant aspect of human behaviour, but it is the one most easily cultivated by society, specifically through, as mentioned previously, nationalistic values and ideals.

I am not sure what exactly you disagree with me on. Do you mean mind set and behaviour are genetically preprogrammed from birth, or do you mean genetic predispositions that increases likelihood to react in a certain way in a certain type of situation, as I described above?

This particular aspect comes down to the very concept of nature vs. nurture. I happen to think nature tends to when out for the most part, with nurture playing the role of incubation.

When talking about nature v nurture, it is very important to define what we mean with "nature" and "nuture" and also, to realise that the whole concept of "nature v nurture" is a popular oversimplification of what the complex interaction between genes, biology and environment. Let me take an example. All humans have this gene, we call it gene A. Gene a is an intronless gene, which means it can expressed or not expressed. As you know, genes code for a protein, and the protein expression this gene codes for, influence a certain behaviour. When you were born, the gene were not expressed. But when you are 20 years old, you experience certain things that switch on gene A, so now it is expressed. Another person will not go through the same things, so gene A is never expressed in this person. Is this "nature" or "nurture"?

There is a vast amount of research done on the interaction between genes, biology, environment and behaviour. There are diseases that are 100% genetic, like Huntington's, Down's or Rhett's syndrome, but in normal behaviour, nothing is known that shows 100% genetic or 100% environmental conditioning. Basic personality traits consistently show 50/50 in twin and adoptions studies, higher order traits (ie traits that regulate more detailed behaviour) show higher environmental determination. Cognitive skills and styles, show about 50/50 too, depending on the skill in question. Many skills, like sematic skills, are highly sensitive to education, others like Working memory are genetically loaded to about 60-70%.

I am highly interested in the regulation of human behaviour, and both you and Fas are discussing this issue. The problem is that I don't understand what you mean. There is no evidence behaviours and attitudes as specific as Fas has described, are genetically predetermined. On the contrary, the evidence is that complex behaviours like thinking your culture is superior to others and wanting to impose your culture upon others, is mostly socioculturally determined. This you both seem to understand, since Fas is giving leave for individual variation and you talk about underlying factors. However, to claim that a certain behaviour or attitude is genetically determined without evidence, is a very strong and speculative claim. To claim that a certain behaviour and attitude is related to underlying background factor traits that are partly genetic, or claim that a certain behaviour and attitude is partly related to a generally human trait is not at all as speculative, but then you need to be able to describe and present arguments for why such a relationship should exist.

A lot of people eat apples. Would you say it is innate or bred into people to eat apples? No, of course not, since all humans do not eat apples. First, apples are not available everywhere and still, humans live there and second, all humans do not eat apples even if they are available. What is "innate" or "bred into people" here is the need for vitamins, ie that is the background factor in this case. Apples are a source of vitamins. People have a genetic predisposition to eat food containing vitamins, and apples is one option of several. If we live in an area where apples are avalible, do we inherit the selection for apples? No, humans learn what is suitable food by model learning. Contrary to many other species, the so called higher primates do not have a genetically determined instinct that tells them what is suitable to eat. So, is apple eating "nature" or "nuture"? And I would be happy if you @Aegis and/or Fas could apply this model to the behaviours we are discussing in this thread, since it is easier to understand what you mean if you specificy what you mean is underlying, what is genetically determined, what is interactive, etc.

[CM]

I am going to respond to CE first as her questions are the most relevant to the thread. Aegis i would love to continue the debate on rights and the UN Human Rights Convention/Charter. Hopefully some time today.

What you base these assumptions on? What evidence is there, what arguments?

These assumptions are based on mainly the geo-political realities of the day. The role and influence of the media and the way it protrays societies, cultures and arguements. The most obvious examples of one culture imposing its views on another in the case of media are Fox News and Al-Jazeera. Secondly the assumption is based on general interaction of people seen in daily life. This was also brought on by the fact that i was having a discussion within the UN with a few collegues and it was made very obvious that only the muslim and a few of the more devout catholic delegates found the the comics in the recent danish newspaper (they basically insulted the Prophet in 12 comics) offensive.

Additionally there are some threads in Gamebanshee which show the inability of people to accept a different point of view on core issues without getting involved in issues of right and wrong and which culture seems to have the right or wrong idea. Examples easily are homosexuality and the insults to the Pope.

How do you explain that there are cultures that do not fit into these behaviour patterns?

LOL. CE if you can show me a culture which does not at any point on any subject not denote that it has superior values and has the right way of doing things, compared to another culture i will eat a hat!

How do you explain that there are individuals in a given culture, that do not fit into these patterns?

Once the above question is answered then we can go on to this question. Because every single human being i have met is just as dogmatic and "superior" as the rest. It is human nature, now is it genetic or based on society one can not say as we have such a limited knowledge on genetics and its affects on our behaviours.

So if it may vary from individual to individual, what are the underlying fundamentals? Obviously the superiority of one's own culture cannot be innate in the human being, since all human beings do not share this view. So what then, is the underlying fundamental that often can result in culture-centric views?

What Dottie was alluding to when i read his post was that the degree of superiority or the idea that they are morally right varies from human to human. I agree with that. It does vary. But each human has the underlying fundemental belief that their culture and system is better than others. That is the underlying fundemental that causes the variance in the degree of feeling superior or better.

I personally agree with Aegis in all that he has said so far about being an innate quality. You asked me earlier how i defined innate. Basically i was using it as an english word. Not as a scientific term as you describe it. In that manner innate describes society "brain-washing" you to think in a certian manner as Aegis has already described.

I personally will try to stay abreast of the scientific discussion as much as possible as my knowledge on it is very limited.

[dj_venom]

Originally Posted by stramoski

P.S. Episode spoiler!

Everyone lived!!!

Well that settles it. The captain was right in ordering it not to be done because the alien lived. Now, if he had been given the rights, he wouldn't have minded dying, but instead, he worked and saved everyone else.

Fight till the end .