The barometer is falling
Oh god…it’s the usual problem, the problem I’ve been having so often lately, especially in the last week. It’s the problem of reading about something that’s so disgusting it’s hard to keep reading. It’s the surge of fear and loathing at the malevolence and brute stupidity and more malevolence in fellow human beings. Like this:
is in jail, desperately praying that she won’t be executed. Her neighbours are hoping she will be.”Why hasn’t she been killed yet?” said Maafia Bibi , a 20-year-old woman standing at the gate of the house next door. Her eyes glitter behind a scarf that covered her face. “You journalists keep coming here asking questions but the issue is resolved. Why has she not been hanged?”
Maafia was one of a group of about four women who accused Bibi, also known as Aasia Noreen, who is Christian, of insulting the prophet Muhammad during a row in a field 18 months ago. But she will not specify what Bibi actually said, because to repeat the words would itself be blasphemy. And so Bibi was sentenced to hang on mere hearsay – a Kafkaesque twist that seems to bother few in Itanwali, a village 30 miles outside Lahore.
So I feel sick, and can hardly stand to read more (but there is more, and it’s even uglier). And there’s so much of that kind of thing.
And for refreshment I can come home and catch up on the news from Tucson, and Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party, and Glenn Beck.
A row over a glass of water, threatens a woman with execution, leaves a high profile politician dead, and a country into crisis. More absurd than the guy who threw away a business card with the name Mohammed on it.
Superior, just like the Nazis, only more evil.
It may sound terrible but I don’t feel sick at all, which is likely because I’m desensitized. Many others who read the Guardian article probably will be, too. Which is an extra layer of terrible on top of everything else. And I can’t get any more upset about that absurdity than the previous ones.
If I can at least take advantage of myself and my reaction to this to make a point- I think it is from within this desensitization that people can become passive enough to grant that one moral position is no more true than any other, and this in turn drives a lot of the confused chatter that passes for debate on religious issues.
And efforts to point out the horror of a woman not knowing whether she will be murdered because of a rumor while a community approvingly looks on, will only recognized by the emotionally dead of us as “shrill” because we aren’t awake enough to match the “shrillness” to the moral issue it addresses.
So the cleric wept with joy and the whole village celebrated, after hearing that the court had sentenced her to death. Does it not instantaneously tell one about the peculiar mindset of the people? They are so blinded by their faith and nothing will shift them from this way of thinking, it is so engrained in their psyches. The community is brainwashed. They know too that if they even dared to say differently that they will experience the same fate as Aasia Bibi
I was reading some of Deeyah’s Youtube comments on her songs and a similar type of thinking to that of Maafia Bibi , a 20-year-old woman standing at the gate of the house; who was wondering why she is still alive screamed out at me. They literally know know better. They grew up in this kind peculiar environment where executions and honour killings are the norm.
Egbert, that second passage you quoted jumped right out at me too…As had the information we already had, that the quarrel had started with the refusal of a glass of water. Unclean, untouchable, caste…it’s all so loathsome.
Unclean, untouchable, but not in the sense of caste. This is the old distiniction between the Muslims and the infidel. This is a different sort of untouchability, and more dangerous, because it is not, as it were, within the family, but at the interface between two different faiths. Bibi is probably not an untouchable in the Hindu sense of caste. Many untouchables in India became Christians, and then, for most Hindus the question of untouchability didn’t arise. This is the pure imperialism of Islam in action, which relegates everyone who is not a Muslim to inferior status. This is deeply embedded in the Qur’an and the Hadith. And it is sickening, because it is so stupid and so arbitrary, and based on something which cannot, for any reason, be thought to provide a basis for a distinction betwen people in terms of class, worth or any other measure of social position. Religion just stinks, you know. I can still remember growing up in India, and of course Christian misiionaries were there to bring light to these people who lived in darkness. It’s a very unsavoury business. Loathesome is the right word. But don’t forget we have it right next door practically anywhere in North America, Christians who look down on other Christians as not really making the grade, and frowning on Jews or Muslims or whatever other religion as betraying the foundation of the country. We even have Christians in Canada who claim that Christianity was integral to Canada’s founding. All complete nonsense, but it doesn’t stop it being said.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa. Skeptic South Africa said: The barometer is falling – Oh godit's the usual problem, the problem I've been having so often lately, especially in… http://ow.ly/1aO9gS […]
A white woman I know works as a children’s speech therapist in an inner city area in Germany where many Muslims live. They say things like “We know you’re a bad person because you’re not a Muslim”.
So the purification principle is at work. At first glance, it looks like a sort of disgust response, and having seen work done about disgust, then disgust responses and boundaries can be created for anything.
None of that is important, what is important is the switching off of sympathy. That is what is so chilling. Even the Nazis had to fight their own sympathy for their horrible atrocities. But Islam is something different. People are not fighting against their own natural emotions. There is no conflict here. It’s pure dehumanisation of the other. As I said, it’s the most chilling evil I’ve ever come across.
Eric,
Well the article itself mentioned caste. According to at least some people that is what it’s about.
The glass of water refusal always did hint at that…
Ophelia,
Breathe deeply and slowly and adopt an attitude of cultural relativism. People in the Third World really don’t accept the Western imperialistic,racist concept of human rights or so I’ve been told a hundred times.
I’m sure that Aasia Noreen and millions of others like her also reject Western values and take comfort in the knowledge that the horrors inflicted on her are all part of her society’s rich cultural traditions.
Perhaps it’s ‘caste’ rather than ‘Caste’ prejudice.
the two seperate universes are very simple, if you love an imaginary god you hate people who are not as you. It’s the most perfect case of an egoist, it’s the perfect case of frustrated psychopaths who thinks they are normal, the rest of the world are gangsters.
Ah, well, I guess I am wrong. I thought the article was wrong, but I did a bit of searching and it turns out that caste is recognised amongst Christians and Muslims, so Christians might be separated from each other by caste as well. It seems to be a social characteristic of the whole subcontinent, so some Muslims would shun others because of caste reasons as well. This suggests that it was not because she was Christian, but because she was a of a lower caste, although perhaps, since strictly speaking, since all non-Hindus are outcastes to Hindus, perhaps all non-Muslims are outcastes to Muslims. What a cheery society!! What a stupid thing religion is.
Indeed.
I wasn’t sure if the caste thing was literal or slightly less literal – it could have been a matter of that way of thinking leaking into other cetagories, as opposed to “official” doctrine that caste applies to non-Hindus. It’s ugly and horrible either way.
Sometimes, in fact often, it can seem as if humans use most of their ingenuity and effort to figure out ways of separating each other into groups and then tormenting the “wrong” groups. (I can hear the distant laughter – this is supposed to be what gnu atheists are doing too. Yes yes, very deep, but it’s hardly the same thing. We don’t make up ways to think of theists as “dirty.”)
Caste considerations abound in christian, Sikh and muslim communities in the subcontinent. There are high and low caste churches, entire sikh sects, sometimes warring, who share similar caste affiliations and of course the muslims are not immune. When I was in India, muslims from the Bohri community – wealthy, educated and liberal- were telling me within minutes of us meeting that their hindu forefathers were of brahmin origin. Indian Bahai converts were trying to impress upon me their openmindedness as regards inter-caste marriage. I hadnt asked nor cared. It was quite telling. Quite a lot of people wanted to know my entire name – they were trying to guess at my caste antecedents. All of this was in north India. I dont know the situation in the south. But in singapore where the indian community is largely south indian, caste considerations are almost entirely absent. There are one or two groups who are sticklers for marrying within the caste – but only that. There isnt even a hint of untouchability in practice.
The hypocrisy of non-hindu Indians who castigate only Hindus for the evil of caste is sometimes exasperating.
Ophelia, the caste connection comes from the fact that historically it was the so-called “lower” castes who were the easiest targets for the missionaries to convert to Christianity, understandably so, since they were the most oppressed.
Russell, I hope my thoughts are not in contradiction to my third-world understanding of the “Western imperialistic,racist concept of human rights”.
Ajita,
Of course not,how could they be? Nothing in your post is relevant to that reference. This wily old trout will leave that particular bedraggled fly alone,I’ve seen it cast a hundred times before, usually with much greater skill.
Mirax,
Interesting post in regard to the caste system in Northern India and that it might be absent in Southern India.
According to Romila Thapar A History of India the caste system in northern India developed from the Bronze age Indo-European speaking Aryan invaders’ discrimination against the indigenous people of the region. The Sanskrit term for caste apparently means ‘color’.
I think it goes deeper than caste, even though that is pretty deep and fundamental.
There are two dangerous ideas without which none of this would be possible, and on which caste rests for its justification.
The first is the idea of a judgmental and omniscient deity. The second is the old idea of the immortality of the soul (read consciousness). If you have those two ideas established in the popular mind, then the world can be easily divided into the saved and the damned, clean and unclean, pure and impure, etc & etc.
Take those two ideas out of Islam and you are left with nothing, and the persecutors of Aasia Noreen are standing naked. Take them out of Christianity and you are left with “the Kingdom of Heaven is within you”; which the Buddhists (from whom the idea probably came originally) would not disagree with, and neither would I.
In a terrible way, Islam is one impressive meme.
One is born into it when the malicious software is loaded onto one’s defenseless infant brain.
From then on there is no escape. Not only will you be murdered if you decide, through some Herculean effort, that the story is false, you will also be murdered if you even doubt that the old lying pederast may not have been perfect in all of his opinions.
Worse still, you will be murdered for merely criticizing a law against criticizing Islam.
One has to admire this almost Alien-like defense mechanism. It’s more effective than having acid for blood or extendable jaws.
This meme is a survivor, but it does have a weak spot.
The tenets of Islam, from flying horses to desert demons are so utterly absurd that once critique of it is allowed, the whole rotten, deranged construct may come tumbling down.
Thanks Ajita. Now that you say it, I think I once knew that.
Actually, come to think of it, most “developed” countries do something similar to a caste system: they solicit immigration from much poorer countries so that very poor people will do “the jobs that [Americans/Germans/Australians/whatevers] won’t do.” Many of the consequences are similar too.
I hope you realize that Russell W’s comment #10 was ironic. He was mocking the trope, not sincerely recycling it. As everyone is always noticing, irony can be tricky on the internet!
What a completely stunning argument Christopher Hitchens gives us in his latest essay in Slate. It makes one stop and stare in admiration. And all one can say is: Yes, that’s right. Why did I not think of this myself?
Yes.
Ophelia,
Yes,er.. thanks for the ‘intervention’. I’ll try to be more literal in future. Re comparisons of ‘caste’ systems,surely in an imperfect world,the difference is not absolute but a matter of degree. Any hitherto, immutable, religiously sanctioned class system is morally repugnant and can’t be compared with the social mobility of most Western societies,particularly the so-called ‘settler’ societies.
Often the children of those immigrants who do those jobs that others won’t do, will be the academics,politicians and capitalists of the next generation.They, and their descendants,won’t be condemned by religious sanctions to jobs as,say, street sweepers and undertakers for untold generations.
Of course some societies are not as socially mobile as their citizens would like to believe and some minorities’ aspirations are suffocated by prejudice(for generations) in the wider community.
Welcome Russell, and no need to be more literal. :- ) It’s only occasionally that these things happen, it’s not worth doing away with sarcasm. I’m sure Ajita has seen so much of the real thing that it was harder to spot the fake.
Ophelia,
It is I who should have been more literal and less ambiguous. I was in fact disagreeing with (part of) the content of Russell W.’s comment, although not very politely or clearly I’m afraid.
Unless the first sentence of the comment (#10) was made in earnest and the rest meant to be ironic, the reference to cultural relativism sets up a false premise, which makes the whole comment (which is, of course, tongue-in-cheek) demeaning to those in the third world (which, admittedly, may not have been Russell’s intention at all). Obviously Russell’s entire comment is sarcastic, which makes it logically incoherent… unless there has been a misunderstanding of the terminology (which I now suspect to be the case).
Cultural relativism is an epistemological approach to understanding people, their ideas and their behavior. It is a perfectly valid epistemological approach, best practiced through the scientific process The misuse of the term by some freethinkers probably arises because it has been commonly confused with a certain interpretation of ‘moral relativism’ (as recently popularized by Harris) that can only, objectively-speaking, be a political stance (not an epistemological understanding).
Human rights is an idea that is conceptually broadly universal, despite the fact that each person who professes an understanding of it in practice, including those in the West, are professing to an idea that was individually determined by unique and relevant cultural experiences. Both detractors and proponents of human rights are covered. With this understanding in place, its easy to see how Russell’s comment, which directly implies that those who adopt cultural relativism conclude that human rights is a Western/racist concept, is logically flawed. The comment, in its stated form, implies that third-world cultures could not have come to such an understanding of human rights from within the sphere of their own cultural experiences, which is probably the opposite of what Russell actually intended to say.
The meaning and intent behind the notion of cultural relativism has been subverted.
@Russell:
I don’t fish. At least, not for sport. Sorry if I left that hook unattended…it helps to not pull against the line.
Ajita,
Congratulations, you’ve successfully demolished, in a rather pompous manner, a number of straw man arguments. If I explain to you that the term ‘cultural relativism’ was used in the popular usage sense,would that help? Then again, why should I have to explain a sarcastic comment?
Your premise that human rights is a ‘conceptually broadly universal’ idea is drivel,it’s simply a platitude used by many appalling regimes. You’re trying to guild a particularly stinking lily.The ‘human rights’ notion of the North Korean regime or the Iranian theocracy are orders of magnitude different,so different in fact, that they are practically non-existent to the Western liberal tradition.
A thought experiment for you, consider a dissenter imprisoned without trial for criticizing the government or a woman condemned to death for ‘adultery’.What value do you think that they would place on the rule of law, the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and free speech? Or would they take a ‘relativist’ attitude to the concept of human rights? What would be your answer?
Kind of you to tell me what I intended,I have to inform that your patronizing tone is offensive when used to someone with my cultural background. I don’t have much hair to spare so let’s end with a detente. and not waste any more of Ophelia’s cyber space.
Russell:
The UN version of human rights is not universally agreed upon, granted. But the conceptual notion of human rights is universally extant in all cultures. Every single group/individual will, in theory, disagree about where the lines are to be drawn in providing rights to people. This is where cultural relativism can come in. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned how these beliefs and behaviors are “determined by unique and relevant cultural experiences”. Again, this is why I mentioned this is an epistemological approach to understanding people and behavior. Again, this is part of the scientific process, and in fact is an integral aspect of methodology in the field of cultural anthropology.
And again, you are confusing cultural relativism with moral relativism. Or you are deliberately conflating the two to portray my words as implying that I consider the North Koreans to be on the same moral ground as the west. This would be disingenuous. I don’t think they are.
Just because the notion of human rights is broadly universal, (that is, human rights is conceptually broadly universal) doesn’t mean that the different standards of human rights found in different groups/individuals are all morally equivalent. This is because morality is intersubjective, and by its very nature finds expression by the inclusion and exclusion of the moral opinions of individuals and groups.
Yes, I agree. And those notions of human rights are very different from mine as well. But this is concerned with moral relativism, not cultural relativism. Same with your thought experiment. Which brings me to this:
If you mean popular misappropriation, yes that certainly does help. As I mentioned, I figured this out after reading your reply to my first comment, and Ophelia’s reply. I didn’t have time to look for a proper source, but this might help (from, sigh, wikipedia):
I apologize for that.
I apologize to Ophelia for this, as well. I do sometimes get carried away and let my passion for the subject get the better of me.
h
A bit of a misunderstanding needs to be cleared up.
I was presenting to you why your misuse of the term “cultural relativism” led me to misunderstand your sarcasm and infer those arguments. Those are not straw-man arguments. Those are not arguments at all. I had not intended to imply that those “arguments” were made by you (which I thought I had made clear, but nevertheless..). For example, it was this particular misunderstanding expressed by me (created by your misuse of the term cultural relativism)- “The comment, in its stated form, implies that third-world cultures could not have come to such an understanding of human rights from within the sphere of their own cultural experiences” – that led me to make my initial sarcastic comment addressed to you.
Secondly,
I was not asking you to. I was merely pointing out that your misuse of the term “cultural relativism” in the original sarcastic comment led me to make the mistake of thinking you were saying that all those in third world countries are incapable of understanding ideas such as human rights unless they are influenced by the west. That is also why I had to state empathetically that I had inferred the opposite of what you had intended. Stating so was not meant to be patronizing, but a confession of my misunderstanding (caused by your misuse of the term “cultural relativism”). Perhaps I could have stated things more clearly, but on going back and reading what I had written, it is I that must be rightly offended here. You have falsely implied that I am on a fishing expedition (and am unskilled at it), that I was falsely morally equating vastly morally different cultures, that I was being pompous, that I have been presenting straw-man arguments and that I am being being patronizing. I must point out that in every one of those claims you are wrong, and my intentions have been misunderstood, misrepresented and turned against me.
Russell, I think you’re misunderstanding Ajita now. Just browse Nirmukta a bit – I think you’ll see that Ajita is not The Enemy!
Ajita, oddly enough, cultural anthropologists themselves (at least in the US) apparently consider what they do to be different from science. There was a fuss about it within the AAA just a few weeks ago. I posted some links here.
Thanks, Ophelia! I found your post and the link to Alice Dreger’s article on Psychology Today. Will check it out in detail. This is some pretty weird stuff for an organization that, arguably, has a duty to remain apolitical as far as the science is concerned. It is appalling that cultural anthropology is now considered a fluff science by some scientists because of the politicization of the discipline by the AAA.
Ajita – yes – the AAA is notoriously er messed up. If you’re curious, try googling Napoleon Chagnon.
Basically the AAA is on record saying evidence doesn’t matter, stories matter, with regard to an investigation into serious (false) charges against two people. It hasn’t lived that down yet.
OK, I looked up Chagnon, and found some specific criticism of his work by other anthropologists that is definitely not scientific. For example, I read Terence Turner from Cornell as saying:
He also says about Chagnon’s conclusion from the data that the more dominant males get more sexual partners:
And this guy is at Cornell!
I think one of the greatest challenges we in the freethought ‘movement’ have ahead of us is in drawing clear methodological distinctions between objective/scientific investigation of facts and intersubjective discussion on ethical considerations. The latter simply must not influence the former, which must be informed by data alone.
Thanks for the heads-up on the AAA and the subversion of science by certain cultural anthropologists. I must remember to keep my guard up so as to not fall into the same trap myself.
Yep. The Chagnon episode is a really classic illustration of that, which is why we used it in a chapter of Why Truth Matters. My co-author did the heavy lifting on that part.
One of the best sources is this 2002 ariticle in the CHE, which unfortunately is behind a paywall. But you can get a sense of it from the linked page.
http://chronicle.com/article/Anthropologythe-Search/30957
Excellent! I have been meaning to read Why Truth Matters for a long time now (since I listened to you on the POI podcast a couple of years ago), and will definitely get to it by the end of this winter.
Ajita,
I didn’t misuse the term ‘cultural relativism’, I used it in its popular sense,otherwise my sarcastic remark would have been meaningless. Jeez.
Some boring personal details might explain why we’re at cross purposes.
I’ll also confess to a certain skepticism as to the scientific credentials of the social ‘sciences’.I first entered university to study sociology, after I found it well, inadequate, I transfered to business school. I’m irritated when people misuse technical jargon from business or economics, however that’s simply human nature,so words take on a popular meaning quite different from their original technical sense.
We’re divided by a common language and different jargon and concepts.
As far as I’m concerned, morality is part of culture,of course there’s also scientific evidence that’s it’s,also, to some extent,innate.
Ophelia,
I visit this site because I find it interesting(even though some discussions seem to about ‘dancing angels’) I learn and it’s all and rather collegiate and thankfully free from the raving monomaniacs that infest other sites. B&W doesn’t seem to be designed just for the ‘The Initiated’.