Cultural dominance

[CM]

I was playing WoW with the TV running and some version of Star Gate was on. I believe it was Star Gate Atlantis. Basically the scene that got me thinking was that the ship with the main characters and one alien species was stuck in the star gate and if they didn't move through completely they would die. The scene was where one of the alien "elders" stated that in their culture and traditions knowing you would die was a sacred situation and that there were rituals which needed to be performed. Now the human character berated the alien character stating that as long as she was incharge she would not tell the alien on board to prepare for death. The message implied by dialogue, music and the way the scene was shot was that the human was in the right and that the alien was wrong in what he asked and thought.

I found that supremely arrogant and pathetic. The alien culture holds death sacred and that he has requested that the other alien be informed of her or his death and be allowed to perform the rituals. There is a flat out refusal and denial of what they feel is necessary for their customs in place of what humans think is right. Now many may say this is hollywood and tv. So its obviously pro-human or what not.

But i don't see that as a TV flaw. Rather i see that innate to all humans. You see that in politics daily. Just not between west and east. But even between the east and east. This is just not a stereotype situation but an inherent belief that our system or culture is better in some way to other cultures. This is most manifest in my opinion not in the US but in Europe. In the east it is obviously Islamic society that feels it holds moral superiority over the rest of the world. The Japanese are a close second.

Views?

[dragon wench]

I am not at all familiar with Star Gate, so I can't directly comment on the series.

However..
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.

I'll try to post more tomorrow, it's getting late and I need some sleep

[Aegis]

Well, this leads back to the basic ethical question of rights, and whether or not the ones we hold so dear are, infact, inalienable. I happen to believe they are not, as if they were, we would all agree upon them, and uphold them. But, by the very notion that there exist cultures and societies with varying degrees of what they believe to be their rights, it shows that they are simply man made, and thus alienable.

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.

I think I'm rambling at this point, so I'll stop. Hopefully I've made some sense. If not, well, so be it.

[stramoski]

I found myself, when watching the same episode, sympathizing with the "backward" ancient guy but agreeing with the human woman...

So I agree, the flaw is general to humanity... At least it exists in me....

[Phreddie]

We are part of our culture because we were (most likely) born into it, we were raisied by its beliefs and traditions, to view ourselves in the right, and so if even uninentionally, as all others in the wrong to a some degree. So, while it does start out as an inherent trait to believe your better than all others, it is then nurtured by our culture, and they allow us to grow more arrogant, instead of teaching us that all men ARE equal (although then again not really, hard to explain). This is evidident in the our (the americans) percieved prejudice towards the french, and muslim communities.
1. towards french, they went against us, but we are always right, so they are wrong, deaht to the frenchman (not my views)
2. oh no! all muslims atacked us (U.S.S. Cole attacked by al queida as well as the 9-11 incidents, among others), so we revenge n all muslims, deaht to islam!
(DEFINITELY NOT my views)
3. as extension if those two foiegn groups are against us then all must be against us! DEATH TO THE WORLD. ( yet again not my views)

[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.

[Fiona]

I don't know about the programme so I can't comment on that.

It occurs to me that this is presented as if only the aliens have cultural responses in the situation. However the human response (to remain optimistic, perhaps to the point of stupidity, in the face of death; to continue to search for a solution and to believe that is in itself worthwhile) is also culturally determined. As I see it the alien has a very strong view of how to behave and it is incredibly offensive to him for this to be denied. In that culture the consequences of not performing the rituals may be far reaching. At the same time the human finds the "surrender" to the situation outrageous. Neither of these is a rational response. I agree that we have to respect other cultures. In the situation as described it is easy to see how the humans could have accommodated the aliens. How would the aliens have been equally respectful ?

[Phreddie]

Each should have left the other alone to that which they saw fit before death, wether ir be attempting to save oneslife or attemtping to prepare oneslef for the hereafter.

[Fiona]

What if the saving requires the active participation of the alien ?

[Phreddie]

Then the humans would be forced to wait for the aliens to finish, it seemed to me though i may be wrong, that the aliens were doing this as a 'just in case measure'. did they say that if you preformed the ritual you HAD to die?

[Fiona]

I don't know Phreddie. But for the sake of argument, imagine that their culture requires them to be involved in the ritual, or to be passive, until they are dead or the threat has passed. And imagine that the humans need them to be active and helpful to have any chance of averting the death. Imagine that there is no time to discuss the prospects etc.

Sometimes it is very hard to be properly and equally respectful of other cultures. The response to situations like this needs to start from the proposition that things like this are both cultural and both valid. Then perhaps we need to try to find some principles we could all apply. This is not simple

[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.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by Fiona

It occurs to me that this is presented as if only the aliens have cultural responses in the situation. [...]

That is a very good point. I wish I had included that in my post. It definitely contribute a lot to the narrow minded image that popular entertainment portray.

[C Elegans]

I have no idea what this TV program is, but I'll comment on the topic in general:

Originally Posted by CM

Now many may say this is hollywood and tv. So its obviously pro-human or what not.

Hollywood and TV are the most influencial norm-setters in the Western world. TV and movies are "almost like reality", the strenght of the moving colour image is so close to reality so people perceive at almost real. Media provides model learning that is almost as powerful as real life model learning, and model learning is humankinds most powerful mode of learning, especially when we grow up. (Just as an example, don't you remember the discussion here at SYM about the American attacks in Mogadishu, when somebody brought up the movie "Black Hawk down"?)
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.

But i don't see that as a TV flaw. Rather i see that innate to all humans.

This depends on what you mean with "innate". Is it predetermined or not? For instance, the development of secondary sex characteristics that occur in puberty which leads to ovulation and menstruation in girls and beard and darker voice in boys, is predetermined and innate, ie it is set from birth that this will occur at a certain time regardless of cultural factors. On the other hand, response patterns like violent behaviour or "we and them"-polarisation is not predetermined, since it doesn't occur in all cultures - not even in all individuals in the same culture. If something is "innate" in the sense that it's "human nature", we should see it in all human cultures.

Now, "innate" in the sense "genetic predisposition that increases likelihood to react in a certain way in a certain type of situation" is a different thing. Demonising and polarisation, like all prejudice, is a sub-part of the learning system we humans have that is called generalisation. So we can say that all humans may have the possibility to become prejudiced, egocentric and narrow-minded, but it's not necessary to develop that way. Some people are more vulnerable than others due to genetic individual differences, some people are more vulnerable due to influence from environmental factors like culture, education, upbringing, social factors, experience etc, but the important things is that not all humans develop this way, not even in cultures with strong norms to polarise. There is actually a fair amount of reseach done both about what causes polarisation and ego/cultural-centric views in societies, and in individuals. Some protective factors, ie factors that inhibit this development, is also known. Thus, I think it's incorrect to label it "innate to all humans". A more correct description IMO would be "most humans are vulnerable to develop polarisation/prejudice in the presence of certain environmental factors".

[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.