Multiculturalism and Religious Fundamentalism
How are Westerners to navigate the intersectional landscape when dealing with religious fundamentalism?
I, for instance, think that FEMEN is kind of insane and that France has no right to impose a ban upon how anyone dresses in any way shape or form, including the wearing of the hijab. However, certain left-wing parties see the wearing of the hijab as a reappropriative symbol of Muslim Feminist liberation. This, to me, is absurd. The hijab is an instrument of repression. It's not something else. If it's a matter of choice, then I don't see why anyone should be opposed to that a person decides to dress however it is that they please, but I do think that you have to be willing to question whether or not it is a matter of choice. To what degree are such cultural traditions imposed? In so far that they are, I think that, in order to do anyone any good, you have to be willing to say that, while you would respect that anyone should do so in so far that they are free to, you ultimately aren't in favor of that repressive traditions are maintained.
I sort of got into Arab rights activism, which I still see as being pressing and worthwhile, through my opposition to what can more or less be regarded as the "War on Terror", and this has been bothering me for kind of a while. I feel like the West has done so much damage in the region that we really do kind of owe it to them to make up for despairing situation that we have created there. I also think that a person should respect that people in the region have a myriad of different worldviews which drastically differ from those that we have here. I'm not quite sure how to be critical of Islam while still giving due regard to that it is a faith which I know almost nothing about. I think that it is better to see what is best in other worldviews than it is to focus on what is negative, but do ultimately think that, in order to really change things for the better, that you do have to be willing to be critical of the faith. How should one approach effecting restorative change in the region?
I, for instance, think that FEMEN is kind of insane and that France has no right to impose a ban upon how anyone dresses in any way shape or form, including the wearing of the hijab. However, certain left-wing parties see the wearing of the hijab as a reappropriative symbol of Muslim Feminist liberation. This, to me, is absurd. The hijab is an instrument of repression. It's not something else. If it's a matter of choice, then I don't see why anyone should be opposed to that a person decides to dress however it is that they please, but I do think that you have to be willing to question whether or not it is a matter of choice. To what degree are such cultural traditions imposed? In so far that they are, I think that, in order to do anyone any good, you have to be willing to say that, while you would respect that anyone should do so in so far that they are free to, you ultimately aren't in favor of that repressive traditions are maintained.
I sort of got into Arab rights activism, which I still see as being pressing and worthwhile, through my opposition to what can more or less be regarded as the "War on Terror", and this has been bothering me for kind of a while. I feel like the West has done so much damage in the region that we really do kind of owe it to them to make up for despairing situation that we have created there. I also think that a person should respect that people in the region have a myriad of different worldviews which drastically differ from those that we have here. I'm not quite sure how to be critical of Islam while still giving due regard to that it is a faith which I know almost nothing about. I think that it is better to see what is best in other worldviews than it is to focus on what is negative, but do ultimately think that, in order to really change things for the better, that you do have to be willing to be critical of the faith. How should one approach effecting restorative change in the region?
Comments (58)
Quoting thewonder
In my view, meaning (or "meaning" rather) doesn't work so that something clearly has the same meaning for everyone. Hijabs can mean anything. We have to ask each individual to know how they think about it.
I think that it can be worn in some sort of radical sense, but that there is a sort of apologetic that goes along with some of the support for doing so. Anyone can reinterpret anything however they please. This is totally different, and, I do not at all mean to draw a comparison, but, to give an example, I think that when Sid Vicious wore the swastika on national television that he did, effectively, totally recontextualize it. The T-shirt was degenerate and banal, but the swastika on TV was a way of expressing that all that they wanted from him was for him to be a degenerate Nazi. I think that it was rather tragic that, in the end, they sort of got that.
That's sort of a tangent, but, from this, we can see, no matter what it is, it can be radically reinterpreted.
A person can drape themselves in a French flag in as much of an appeal to Communist revolution as they can to some form of reactinoary nationalism.
So, it can be done. The problem, I think, is that that women are expected to wear the hijab is generally somewhat repressive. I don't think that this should be generally supported in opposition to the absurd injunction to ban the hijab. Perhaps the clothing item just needs to be reinterpreted, and, so, in so far that it is, I suppose that that is good, but, in so far that it remains an instrument of repression, I don't think that the wearing of the hijab should be necessarily supported. As to how all of this should be handled, I am still unsure. I ultimately grew up in the West and it is ultimately not really my place to say how it is that a Muslim woman should dress. If asked, however, I feel like you should give a person your honest opinion. I think that it's kind of repressive, but that you should be able to choose how you express your belief system. I don't know whether or not that would go over well. I should like for it to, but ultimately can't say that I've really done the intersectional analysis to adequately put forth an opinion upon such things.
Yes, and it is also that the whole of a woman's body needs to be covered, for modesty, I suppose, which is mostly so but varies by the local Islamic law. Men need to cover up from their belly buttons down to their knees. Their religion is such to say that Allah has an interest in clothing the body.
The differences between cultures goes a long way to causing trouble, for human nature is not all that great about dealing with differences. Somehow, people think the credibility of their own culture gets diminished via the mere existence of the others (especially with differing religious beliefs).
Islam doesn't offend me in any way aside from that it tends be patriarchical. Perhaps I should have titled this thread Multiculturalism and Traditionalism. How does multiculturalism cope with traditionalism? I assume that it is a good thing that people should be aware of that there are all kinds of different cultures in the world and that people should take into account that various different worldviews are bound to drastically differ from their own and that you should approach other cultures somewhat openly. I just don't know what to do about that I do ultimately have qualms with certain kinds of traditionalism. Is the rejection of all forms of traditionalism culturally insensitive? How should you approach traditionalism in general?
I'm asking you as much as I'm asking anyone in general.
Live and let live, and even more so, if that's possible, because they have to do it, which fixed will understanding all the more lessons any possible aggravations. Even seek out other nationalities for their uniqueness.
I guess that I do that. One should only ever be so judgemental.
I met a guy once who was sort of into Bushido and I just rambled about Yukio Mishima because I think too much about Fascism and its various derivatives and then I felt sort of bad about it after the fact because I bet that that guy only really saw things that were good about Bushido and that I had, perhaps, to him, indirectly implied that I thought that he was some sort of esoteric Fascist.
I should try not to do that at least.
Then again, I don't see why you can't talk about Yukio Mishima in the bar if you really feel like it. I just kind of wanted to go on about him because I had been thinking about him lately. I had this experimental film that I was going to do about a guy in a dream state who was hunting down and killing off aspects of his own personality. The figure of the antagonist was going to be reading one of his books. It was supposed to be an Existential horror film.
Perhaps I'm just too bleak. I don't really think that I'm all that bleak, but I may come off that way. Anyways, I've gone quite off topic. Carry on as usual.
Isn't the answer simply to treat religion and culture like any other sincerely held belief? I think one should always approach people and their views, especially dearly held ones, with a measure of respect. There is always a personal story behind them.
But one should also always question or criticize what one deems immoral or impractical. Why should culture and religion be accorded special status that makes them above ordinary discourse? Of course these are usually very dearly help beliefs, so one should be mindful of other people's feelings when discussing them. But to make them somehow taboo seems irrational.
Cultural relativism must ultimately lead to moral relativism. It's impossible to untangle culture from worldview. And I don't see anyone arguing we should respect and learn from the worldview of white supremacists.
Quoting thewonder
Genesis 3:16. To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
A woman who does not want her husband to "rule over" her, will most likely not have one. I suspect that there is no other solution.
Quoting thewonder
United States and Taliban negotiators have wrapped up their sixth round of peace talks with "some progress" made on a draft agreement for when foreign troops might withdraw from Afghanistan, a spokesperson for the armed group has said.
Since that small combat force, i.e. the Taliban, has now brought the USA to their knees, any hope of imposing western views on gender, upon other cultures/religions, had better be abandoned. These western views have simply failed the test of violent combat. The war is over.
Perhaps you'd like to have a talk with my wife about that. She seems to forget I am her ruler.
Quoting alcontali
Western views are everywhere around the world. They're the standard according to which the upper classes of many non-western countries mold themselves. I think it's a little absurd to claim that western views have failed.
I agree with some sort of "relative" ethics. I think that almost everyone agrees that you should respect other cultures. I suppose that Multiculturalism seeks to address this in general. I was thinking that there should be a multicultural equivalent to intersectionality, but then realized that that is just what Multiculturalism already is. I think that that has more or less solved my dillema, but you and whoever else can still go on about whatever if you feel like doing so.
How was the war supposed to have effectively mediated a cultural dialogue?
Matthew 5:5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
We do not descend from the upper classes of the past.
Why Millennials Refuse to Get Married. Marriage Rates Are Plummeting. Fertility Rates Keep Dropping, and it’s Going to Hit the Economy Hard.
Furthermore, the children of these upper classes will generally not be particularly upper-class any longer. It is the ones who keep up marriage and fertility rates who will ultimately prevail.
The upper classes do not hold Western values. At least not modern ones. They increasingly see themselves above the law and have not the slightest problem with undermining democracy and fighting legislative changes that might make this harder to do both at home and abroad-
But aren't relative ethics a problem for stances opposing phenomena like racism or misogyny?
I don't think so. I've never really studied Ethics, and, so, I couldn't really say with certainty, but it seems like some sort of situational ethics wouldn't discount that such things are still problematic. It'd be difficult to argue that according to the situation that the right thing to do would to be a racist or misogynist. Granted, there's always the potential for a reducto ad given a 'relativist' Ethical framework, but I think that if anyone really cared to hash it all of the way out that such problems would disappear.
Promote a contrary view instead of just tearing down theirs. One reason westerners are converting to Islam is the lack of justification for the traditional western life. Only until we reform our own affairs and offer another way of life, can we work to change theirs.
There is a difference in my mind between situational and relativist ethics. Ethics are necessarily situational, because they deal with decisions you make on given information. The relativist would be that different ethics apply to different people, not based on the situation they find themselves in, but because of who they are - that is the circumstances they have found themselves in in the past.
That's probably a good approach.
I think that Situational Ethics are grouped under the category of something like Moral Relativism, but you may be right that there is a real distinction. I think that "relativism" just denotes that a person doesn't believe in abstract moral truths. It, perhaps, shouldn't. But, to my estimation, that is what it generally refers to.
"Relativism" can, but does not necessarily mean that you think that Ethics stem from some sort of inner subjectivity. It just means that you reject that there is something like the Ten Commandments which are necessarily 'true' in every given case. It also follows that you would reject any set of abstract Ethical truths which are considered to be 'true' in a similar sense.
To me, it seems to be the case that no set of Ethical truths, no matter how well thought out, can apply to each and every given situation. This arises, in part, out of a preference that I have for subjectivity which is predicated upon that knowledge is situated by experience. @tim wood brought up a good point in a different thread, however, that there is a case to be made for that murder is just always wrong. I think that it logically follows that it is always wrong because it is, by definition, unwarranted. I disagree with his assumption that an abstract ethic should follow from that murder is always wrong, however, as I believe for it simply be an exceptional case. To me, even though you can probably make a case for a few things that are always just wrong, it doesn't really make very much sense to parcel out an abstract set of Ethical truths as the value judgements of any given event are moreso determined by the situation which engendered it.
In my view, it is a society's right to uphold those values that are fundamental to it. If a certain style of dress symbolizes something that conflicts with a society's values, I consequently see no issue in forbidding it.
Of course individual opinions on the meaning of such styles of dress may differ, but it is simply not practical for a society to judge these on a case-by-case basis.
Statesmanship is full of such concessions.
To me, there's something that's just implicitly totalitarian, and, therefore, totally undesirable, about regulating how it is that people choose to dress. Even if such legal actions are made in order to promote some Liberal principles which I may agree with, doing so seems to violate a basic right to free expression, which I am unwilling to concede. I am not of the opinion that is acceptable for a state to make such concessions.
Say, for instance, that an art band creates a glyph that they put on a shirt. This glyph somehow gets co-opted by Fascist terrorists through no fault of the band. The wearing of the shirt in support of Fascist terrorism becomes enough of a phenomenon to warrant concern. The banning of the wearing of the shirt is not a solution to the problem. The root causes of Fascist terrorism need to be addressed.
Actually I think it's fair to say that a moral relativist rejects abstract moral truths. But I think there are situational abstract moral truths. Kant's Categorical Imperative, or a similar idea of reciprocity, would be an abstract moral truth, but it's not a list of commandments. It's a guide for decision-making and in that case is absolute in it's command. But the command can be different for any given situation.
Quoting thewonder
I agree with this more or less completely. I think the proper use for abstract morals is as a guidance for decision making, not a list of commandments. I do think it's possible to come up with a guidance that does it's job, in the same way as the scientific method does it's job.
I don't know that Situational Ethics rejects necessarily rejects the Categorical Imperative, but I do think that "Relativism" does. It's a bit strange to discuss "Relativism", I think, because the term was sort of used a pejorative for the common Relativist Fallacy within the Soviet Union by the likes of Ayn Rand. I don't think that that is at all what "Relativism" is, but, to my understanding, the term is somewhat nebulous.
We can come up with general guidelines, but I would arguge that it is only so useful to do so. The logic of the general rule has a way, in my opinion of running away with itself.
You could, for instance, argue that it was wrong for Gavrillo Princips to assassinate Franz Ferdinand based off of the general rule that it is wrong to kill. When you begin to apply general rules to the situation, however, I think that the Ethical concerns get kind of out of hand. To deduce that it is wrong to kill a political leader because this hazards starting a world war fails to take into account the particulars of Princips's situation. He was only nineteen, a somewhat disaffected youth who became involved with parties who had nothing to do with the kind of society that he sought to create in the midst of political situation that he could not be reasonably held accountable for. That the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a somewhat lone act by an alienated teenager is a drastically different interpretation of the event than that Anarchists present a clear and present danger to peaceful society.
I'm not sure if that argument really makes too much sense. I just kind of wanted to bring up Gavrilo Princips for some reason.
I guess that what I'm suggesting is that the attempt to create general rules and guidelines hazards jumping to conclusions in a way that what I percieve to be Situation Ethics does not necessarily.
There is something very important missing in this equation, namely the requirement to put skin in the game.
That is why Roosevelt's decision to instruct Eisenhower to carpet bomb the nazi civilian population was so important. It was just too easy for these nazi civilian populations to clamour for "upholding nazi values" without them risking their own life at the Russian front. The carpet bombing of nazi civilian populations rectified that problem by forcing them to put skin in the game.
It is certainly possible to enforce any kind of "society value" but the idea that someone else will have to risk their lives and die for what you believe in, is simply not acceptable. If you refuse to put skin in the game, then you must be forced, kicking and screaming, to do so.
Aren't there so many things in society that dictate the behavior of people? Regulating the behavior of people in order for them to coexist peacefully is, dare I say, a constant in history. Perhaps you find that undesirable, but then I also suppose you are in favor of a style of living that is radically different from the society we live in today.
These seem different topics. Whether citizens should be allowed to dress a certain way is an internal affair of state, whereas the situation you depicted concerns international affairs. The former deals with the "Us" and how "We" should behave, whereas the latter is deals with "Them" and how "They" should behave.
That it is constant in history does mean that it should be done. Slavery was sort of a historical constant. Just because things have been the case does not mean that they should be.
I am in favor of a style of living that radically differs from what exists now. I would contend that a continuation of politics as such is not necessarily positive.
In terms of "skin in the game", it is the same problem.
There are people who clamour for arbitrary enforcement action against other people, but who do not intend to put skin in the game. You see, Alexander the Great had real authority, because he would always personally lead the cavalry charge. If he had refused to take personal risk, his views would have been dismissed as "too easy".
There is no such thing as a free lunch. Nassim Taleb's "Skin in the game" even argues that there should be no such thing as a free lunch. People with no skin in the game, should never have a say; or else, they should be forced to put skin in the game.
It all shows the necessity to retaliate against civilian populations, who must never be allowed to believe that there is something like a free lunch.
Certainly. But perhaps you will agree that when something has been the case for all of history, there must be some good reasons for it?
Quoting thewonder
Would you care to share that with us?
Those reasons being that they are a means to maintain an ostensibly illiberal and unequal society which only benefits a select few. That the governance of the Pharohs made sense does make it at all desirable.
I am a very particular Anarcho-Pacifist with interests and critiques of Autonomism and Communization.
Alright, but there must be some reasons for the majority to accept such conditions?
Quoting thewonder
Do you believe that humans are pacifist in nature?
There are of course, reasons. Everything has reasons. That doesn't make them good.
I think that humans are vaguely Pacifist in nature. I would probably suggest that while, in nature, human beings are neither violent nor nonviolent, that they can generally be considered to be somewhat nonviolent. I have an only partially optimistic view of human nature in general. I also think that it only 'exists' to a certain degree.
How does one address the root causes of Islamic or north african ideas about women and their clothes and not be what you are calling totalititarian? What's the counterproposal?
I actually agree, I wouldn't outlaw women wearing the hijab, though I might for minors, that is girls.
I would just arguing against @Tzeentch's statement that Quoting Tzeentch That statement didn't really have anything to do with the hijab.
Assumedly, you would let them wear whatever they want to in a free country.
Why should there be an exception?
I think that you should be allowed to dress however you please, including the lack of clothes, regardless as to what "society's" values are.
I approve of gay sex in the park and nude beaches (preferably with sex options) but I don't want sex and nakedness everywhere. It's distracting, for one thing. It's a major crossing of boundaries, which most people find annoying. There are reasons why stores and restaurants have "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules.
Though, as far as clothing goes, I'm pretty tolerant. I find overly weird costumes off-putting, but I don't call the cops whenever I see somebody dressed strangely.
I would say it makes them neither good nor bad, but simply a logical consequence of circumstance.
Quoting thewonder
I don't know any "free" countries. Do you?
I realize those are extreme examples, but then, that's one way to test.
And how do we determine what a child wants to wear and when a parent has done something wrong. Hairshirts, burkha, nude?
Then a small but important part of Harvey Weintein's behavior was using nakedness and partial nakedness in ambiguous meetings as part of a dominance and abuse practice. It would seem like worksplaces and then situations where there are serious power imbalances, authority roles, etc., might make complete freedom with clothing problematic.
And then private institutions, like corporations, have all sorts of control over employee garb. I would love to see that radically dismantled right off the bat. But I would, still, understand a bank wanting their tellers to be clothed.
The real problem is the eternally faulty epistemic stance of the populace of retarded imbeciles in the West. They do not believe something because of its justification -- they are way too stupid to verify the justification anyway -- but because of whom says it, e.g. the blue-pilled narrative of the manipulative mainstream media and official, state-controlled education/indoctrination system.
Of course, the Muslim population is not much under the spell of the same blue-pilled narrative that clouds the dumb skull of the western populace. Still, the manipulators would strongly desire to manipulate the Muslims too. So, they need to attack the alternative beliefs that prevents the Muslims from buying into the manipulative lies that the idiots in the West so strongly believe.
The manipulations are very strong and very successful at fooling these idiots.
In less than a hundred years, they have successfully managed to reverse what is normal with what is perverse. That what used to be normal, is now perverse in the West, and that what used to be perverse, is now normal.
A hundred years ago, marrying a 14-year old wife was normal, while having sex outside marriage was perverse. Today, it is exactly the other way around. The western populace of retards and other imbeciles even strongly believe in this inversion of perversion. They want it! They cannot imagine the reverse -- which is "normality" -- because they are too stupid for that and too deeply infected with perversity already.
Of course, perversity does not last. Normality will one day or the other reassert itself. It always does.
On that day, the perverted retards and other imbeciles in the West will simply run up to the 12th floor of the building they are in, and jump out of the window, because deeply invested as they are in their perversity, there is no way that they would still be able to handle normality.
But you seem to have little to worry about since it will all deterministically rebalance.
Both of you are right according to your viewpoint and l don't think you guys will solve it here . Lets call it a day.
I would agree with you if you could replace retarded imbecciles with right wing islamophobes who watch fox news 24/7 .
If we are talking about clothes, which I would include the above in, we really can't second guess why people are wearing them. I think the conformity that compels some girls to look as if they have encountered the Slasher is oppressive.
Naked banking sounds pretty far out!
I just think that at all regulating how people dress is an overreach regardless as to that there are a few outliers which still pose certain problems.
It seems to turn, in your mind, people into violent automatons, and this is something you enjoy. I think your ancestors would not have respected you.
I don't think that banning them in schools is a good idea. It is a religous choice. It's one that I don't necessarily agree with, but I don't think that imposing a ban in schools is at all a good idea. You can't impose a ban on someone wearing a kippah or a cross. It kind of crosses too much over into the same kind of nebulous territory.
But it isn't. Again, the Koran actually only says appropriate clothing. It is a regional choice or cultural choice. And schools tend to have rules about appropriate clothing themselves. Thouhg I have no problem banning wearing religious items either, it just isn't one. Of course one can argue about where the gray area is or where the boundary is. We wouldn't allow footbinding or hair shirts. So there will a a limit. Most schools will limit skin exposure and provocative women's clothes. Why should one worldview be protected and not all?
I'm not a moderator and am not going to assume that you made your earlier post in sincerity, but please do not make threats in this thread.
I don't even know what it is that you two are arguing about. This seems like a flame war that was just started for the sake of doing so.
Eh, I don't know. I suppose we just disagree. It seems to me that if a child comes from an extremely conservative family that imposes all too stringent rules on the child which impede the development and infringe upon the autonomy of the child, that, perhaps it is the case that someone should say something. I don't think overly simplistic solutions like imposing bans on styles of dress will do anything to help matters.
I guess I see the sliperry slope doing in the opposite direction. Enver Hoxha imposed a ban upon the wearing of beards. I see the ban on the hijab sort of like that. It's not like there isn't some fundamentalist injunction which stipulates the style of dress, but imposing a ban, to me, seems rather absurd. I can see what you're saying about children, but I still think that it would be an overreach of the State to too directly dictate how a child should be made to dress.
One thing it would do is say to the child that we, as a society, have a problem with what your parents wanted to do. And we have other laws that are like this. The parents will likely discuss this with the child, from their point of view, and I would guess most children would then be curious about the motivation on the other side. And that it is not just a few people who have this other view. I don't feel certain this is the right move, but I do see potential benefits.
I guess I don't think that I think that the hijab is something which can be considered to be socially disintegrative to where imposing a ban would at all be required. It's a personal choice. If a white nationalist family dressed their child in a Prussian Blue T-shirt, then I can see how a school might have to address that, but wearing the hijab doesn't disaffect anyone else. It's kind of just not the school's business.
If religious fundamentalism disaffects a young woman's studies then that is something that the school should address with her parents, but I ultimately see the ban on the hijab as being rather arbitray and somewhat absurd. To me, it is a simplistic solution that fails to address the real problems at hand. Better cultural dialogue will do better to undo intransigent fundamentalisms than somewhat offensive limitations imposed upon the expressions of one's faith such as the ban on the hijab.
The wearing of the hijab should be a matter of choice. That it isn't on either side is resultant of a lack of cultural understanding and an ostensible fundamentalism which is resultant of that lack of cultural understanding. As society becomes more open to Islam, Islam will become more open to society.
I gotta keep saying it: it's not an expression of their faith. It's not in the Koran and people who are not Muslim will wear them. Better cultural dialogue can happen at the same time.Quoting thewonderI don't think Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity, for example) really work with society. Or better put, not with one I want to live in. I don't think neo-conservatism does either, don't get me wrong, and they had a hat on their kids, I'd ban it from schools also.
I'm suggesting that better cultural dialogue will result in that fundamentalist Muslims become less fundamentalist.
As an Anarchist, I was kind of hoping that with the Arab Spring that people in the region would just abandon Islam altogether and start some sort of Anarchist insurrection, but that never quite panned out.
I guess I do think that you should respect a certain degree of cultural difference. I think that the ban hinders dialogue and, therefore, will not be resultant in that the wearing of the hijab becomes a matter of choice. People will continue to wear it in an act of protest which may reaffirm intransigent fundamentalist positions. Imposing the ban will only It is also the case that wearing the hijab as an act of protest will let for it to be reinterpeted, but that is beset by its own set of contradictions. Doing so will have its perils, but I think that it could even effect postive change.
Imposing the ban only substantiates that Muslims are persecuted by the West, in my opinion. Some other methods need to be taken to effect a better situation for women in Muslim society. The West should also have a much different approach to Islam in general. I see better cultural dialogue as the way to go, but ultimately don't really know what that precisely entails.
No, it even reinforced the power of Islam in some ways/places.Quoting thewonderMe too. I am trying on an interventionist hat, here,now. I am tired of what kids are put through. And Islam can hardly demand tolerance of cultural differences, not these days. And it is a very intolerant religion.Quoting thewonderMaybe.Quoting thewonder
Sure, the biggest thing that could be done would be to stop messing around with the Arab nations under the guise of noble or self-protective bs, the whole regime change monstrous Project for a New Century long term plan they have been carrying out. That would be the place to start.
Oh, I agree, and the regime changes weren't always undertaken under the guise of Liberal virtues. I honestly don't know what can be done about the political situation in the region. The West has sort of left it in a state of disrepair. It'd take a radical reconceptualization of the West's approach to dealing with the political situation there. I'm not terribly hopeless. I think that some people could care enough to do this so as to make it possible. I'm just not sure that I can realistically effect any positive change there.
Such religiously based carpet-bombing of the mind is disgusting, but because there are no immediate bruises or scars it is somehow deemed as ‘choice’. Would you lock a child in your house and teach it to speak German ONLY in an English speaking country? That, although on a fundamentally worse level, is what happens all the time with deluded maniacs preaching opinion as fact. It is mentally crippling, a disgrace of humanity, to hold children at arms length from understanding the natural world.
Headdress? Why care? Are innocent minds being destroyed by institutional stupidity/ignorance? Yes, and it is NOT due to the influx of foreign religious ideas but due to the paranoia, hypocrisy, megalomania and willful disregard to rational fact-based analysis.
Wonder -
Pacifist due to fear, more often than not. That is a BIG problem.
The world is under one umbrella now. Every corner of the globe is connected. Exposure to differences at a safe distance is generally a step in the right direction - regardless of what people appreciate through social media today the actual experience of something can never be replaced. The small worry is, for me at least, that instead of dispelling contrary tropes they’ll be reinforced and what could’ve cut the distance between peoples will do no more than bring the sense of ‘threat’ closer to home (note: false/delusional threats).
What we call 'culture' or 'religion' are, in essence, merely bucket terms in which the us-them dichotomy is expressed through human differential actions including language ( the vehicle of thinking like 'self') and dress. Problems arise when individuals claim membership of different tribes, often for practical economic reasons, and competition for resources, raises tensions.
A secondary evolutionary trait of 'male dominance' tends to further complicate the situation.
Yes, the neo-liberals and neo-cons have been trying these last five decades.
Then why is exotic erotic?