Marc Pembroke (maplawqb@clic.net)
Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:54:54 -0400
From: "Marc Pembroke" <maplawqb@clic.net> Subject: Re: their country their culture Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:54:54 -0400
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Eliot raises some valid points, but I think the more we look at it,
the more we may see that it's too easy to try to characterize culture
(within, without) and country without taking into account some very
conscious decisions made at one time or another in order to constitute a
nation or a community.
In this forum, for example, we are using the English language, not French,
nor German, nor Russian, nor Spanish, nor Dutch. I selected those countries
deliberately, because at one time, each had asserted territorial claims in
some part of the country now known as the United States. We simply cannot
define United States culture without making some reference to British
culture. For various reasons, English-speaking peoples dominated the others
on the North American continent. They did not do so in complete in a
cultural vacuum. Nor were they ignorant of, or indifferent to religious and
cultural phenomena elsewhere.
I am certainly not saying that everything that our ancestors did was
correct. However, I think American parents would be remiss in failing to
convey what is valuable in their own history to their own children.
The problem gets more complicated when we consider that what is now America
includes, and always included, contributions from other cultures, just as
British culture had influences from many ethnic groups.
For various reasons, and sometimes for contradictory reasons, people from
all over the planet seem to want to come to the United States, some to
visit, some to stay. Is it not just possible that something in American
culture appeals to people from non-American traditions?
On the other hand, America purports to be a nation which welcomes
participation from other languages, cultures and religions. Whether it
always does so well, or whether it could do so better, or differently,
should not mask the fact that an attempt has been made to grant a great deal
of personal freedom to all individuals.
We do have to acknowledge that not all cultures and not all religions value
such individual liberties the same way. Choosing one value means choosing
against another value.
We can and should make choices, and we should teach our children to make
choices. But is there a good reason why those choices should not be informed
by the historical record?
Some are explicit, and some are implicit. Language is a good example. In
theory anyone could learn a second, and perhaps a third or fourth language.
If you choose to work and communicate in a second language, you might master
it easily, or with difficulty, depending on your aptitudes, learning styles,
methods, etc. Nevertheless, the child who is born in a home and community
where the language is spoken has an advantage. His or her parents brought
the child into the community which spoke the language. That's one less thing
for the kid to learn.
Similarly, you may choose to retain the citizenship with which you were
born, or you may choose to change it. The person born in the country you
choose to live in, if different from your own, has an advantage. He or she
doesn't need to go through immigration procedures.
I think the same applies to culture and other matters. Raising children
IMHO, is another expression of affirmative participation in a cultural,
religious, and political community. A culture which fails or refuses to
propagate itself will simply be supplanted by another one with the
confidence and energy to value its own past and future.
Marc A. Pembroke
Directeur, Institut Auguste Lecerf
University of Phoenix practitioner faculty
6401, rue des Camomilles Apt 2
Charny, QC G6X3E8
Canada
(418) 832-7168
maplawqb@clic.net
http://www.clic.net/~maplawqb
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Eliot <eliot@cs.umass.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list IFETS-DISCUSS
<IFETS-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.READADP.COM>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 1999 8:45 AM
Subject: their country their culture
J spears wrote.
> >..., our students will learn little about
> > themselves if the focus will be on a kind of order which is defined not
in
> > relation to other systems but from within ...
>
> I think this is a cop out. You abdicate responsibility for moral
> judgement when you make everything culterally relative. If you define
> right and wrong as being "whatever someone else's culture comes up
> with" then you have no moral compass. You cannot look at another
> person in another culture and say "you are wrong". I don't buy it.
>
> Do you apply this to the culture of gang members? Do you apply this to
> genocidal cultures? Is Indonesia wrong to suppress the people in East
> Timor or is this just "their culture".
>
> This also ignores the substantial agreement about basic moral
> principles which is found in all cultures. The details vary, but every
> culture develops mechanisms to reduce conflict and handle the
> contingencies of life. These vary with technology, population density
> and environment. But I think people from all cultures would agree that
> they do things the way they do "to get along together". If I am right
> then there is a single meta-principle that should be taught to
> everyone. Perhaps you should teach that by showing students how it
> arises from the particulars of their culture. But if you don't
> have your own sense of right and wrong you won't be able to.
>
> -Chris Eliot
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 24 Sep 1999 - 03:37:09 MEST