When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”.
28 Replies to ““Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?””
Have you endorsed any Lyndon LaRouche proclamations lately? The last one looked really good on you.
Mr Talent
“largely positive and contextualized experiences, creating an emergent discursive space for a hitherto “muted group””
From the new Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary:
“discursive, dis ker siv, a. [Fr. discursif, from L. discursus. DISCOURSE] Passing rapidly from one subject to another; desultory; rambling; digressional; argumentative; reasoning; rational”
Well, if you say so.
“Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?”
Are illegals immigrant legal?
Is Bush worse than Hitler?
Is Jean Chretien innocent ( Adscam )
Does masturbation make one blind and grow hair inside the hand?
Does the tooth fairy really exist?
Off topic but not really… why are a lot of your entries not accepting comments? I wrote some pretty good comments but they all got flushed.
Bottom line is that sometimes cultural practices shouldn’t expand to the new world.
Well, I guess it’s all about contextualization.
Given that…I wonder in what context is the previously debated expression of sharia law in Canada valid (Ont Family Court)….. anthropologically speaking?
Does this make “reasonable accommodation” a valid societal pursuit?
When is relativism relative?
Syncro
Certain cultures used to sacrifice virgins to their Gods. Others practice cannibalism. And some would tell us that it is wrong to be opposed to Female “circumcision” for the reason that it is a cultural thing…
Dear Mr. Talent,
One of the features offered by this site is a search function. You can locate it on the sidebar to your left.
Upon doing so, I suggest that you type the words “Lyndon LaRouche” in the box provided, and click “search”.
After you have finished with your “search”, you are invited to return to this thread to offer your correction – at which point you may kindly go f*ck yourself and the Dawg that dragged you in.
Far be it for me to stop stupid people from being stupid.
Having said that, if the children of these nut-bars (growing up in this country) would rather have a new IPOD than mangled genitalia the first parent who tries to force the issue should have their children taken away from them.
Anthropologists and most other academics in the social sciences subscribe to a dangerous and pernicious view of basic human rights – that they are culturally constructed.
This means, that the human rights one has is contingent on where they come from and the colour of their skin.
If human rights are to mean anything, then the only criterion should be that one is human. And that means that if something is a violation of a humans right to dignity of the person in one country, it is a violation in any country.
Along with Femal Genital Mutilation, the colonizing influences of the west also eradicated in various countries the important cultural practices of bride burning, and infant exposure. “Cultural context” is an equally valid argument for reinstituting those horrors as well.
The modern wave of feminism takes a position that is inherently racist – they wouldn’t want Female Genital mutilation practiced on their daughters, but that isn’t because it is “wrong”. Its because it is all right for people to remain ignorant, backward, physically mutilated and enslaved by barbarous traditions so long as they have “brown skin”.
The danger these anthropological and cultural relativists pose is not just to young girls in countries that are slipping back into the dark time before the enlightened influence of western ideas of human rights and dignity. It is to our own culture. Because the social science relativists have their sights set on our own culture here in Canada. They are bent on deconstructing and destroying the validity of our own culture, and the absolute nature of our human rights. A laissez faire relativistic view of human rights is a more dangerous threat to our liberties that an army of tyrants.
Initiation rites are endemic to mankind just as are acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. Differences in initiation rites and acceptable/unacceptable behaviours will remain relative until mankind agrees on the universal. Modifying female genitalia as commonly practiced is more painful and more dangerous than modifying male genitalia as commonly practiced. However so long as we fail to agree with each other regarding universal truth and universal standards the only remaining truth in this world will be “man’s inhumanity to man”.
No, we shouldn’t be trying to effect what these folk do. We should build a wall around them and go back in a thousand years to see if any intelligent life has evolved.
I say carry it one step further and help Darwin out.Sterilize them while they joyfully submit to this mutilation.Can only improve things.
Oh.ABTW….”Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?”
Yup.YOU are the outsiders,so why are you trying to force your “culture” on our society???? Ummmmm???
They say it liberates them from men.
I don’t like that idea.
There is more that’s wrong with this than just the surgery.
However
Male circumcision is the norm in my family. Some folks would like to put an end to that as well.
And I belong to a culture that accepts clitoris piecing, nipple piercing, just about any body part, liposuction, tummy tucks, face lifts, tattoos, and makeup on prepubescent girls.
Is that any a whole lot better?
Ah blast! should read
Is that a whole lot better?
Texas Canuck: I wrote some pretty good comments but they all got flushed.
Me too, but never attribute to selective editing that which is adequately explained by software glitches.
There’s probably a backup somewhere anyway, but it might be a hassle to merge into existing comments.
As a long-time commenter to various forums, it IS a bit disheartening to see one’s well though-out words just disappear into the ether.
My comment got eaten last night too. However it wasn’t that brilliant, so I don’t miss it. ~:D
A)I fail to see how one can “contextualize” removing a whole sensory nerve cluster from the genitalia of an unwilling participant. Particularly when it is done with a handy bit of glass or a sharpened oyster shell, and girls die of it regularly. Shall we contextualize ritual infanticide? How about witch burning? (Non Christian of course! Our culture doesn’t count as a “culture”.)
B)That this “debate” is happening at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting tells you pretty much everything you need to know about anthropology as it has been practiced since the ’80s. PoMo relativism has taken the place of science, and the change is not an improvement.
Sorry about the comments issues. I often write posts in advance and then set them to auto publish later. For some reason, a few of these reject comments until someone goes in and rebuilds them. In other cases, it’s indeed a software glitch – I can’t help that, the server is pretty busy at times and I suspect the problem can be traced to that.
Say I …
These women who want to hack their groins and have mystical power over men can carry on so long as they stay in Toronto and don’t come out West. ;0)
Now that the server/software is happy again, I was previously commenting on the difference of having some extra skin removed by a surgeon or equally qualified person for health and/or religious preferences, and the genital mutilation of females that seems to have no medical value and is often performed by less than qualified butchers. To me the answer is obvious.
Having said that, I wonder about practices of scarification and neck rings, for example. Is it ok to allow cultural practices in their land of origin but ban them when the practice is brought to a land with other cultural values? Or maybe we try to eradicate them everywhere, but then who decides what is acceptable and what is not? Lord knows I wouldn’t want some progressive leftoid telling me what to do. Sometimes life isn’t as easy as one wishes it would be.
As for the dropped comments thing, I have never considered Kate to be censoring or selectively editing anything. If you cross the line, she lets you and the world know or better yet puts the offender in their place with a few well placed words. I actually look forward to the skewering when someone hangs out their STUPID sign.
Honestly, it sounds like the lady quoted has a fetish involving sexual mutilation, and power issues across gender.
From what I recall – sexual physical disfigurement is commonly thought of to be a low grade psychosis – with potential to become extreme in some people.
Kinda sounds like a speech from NAMBLA – rational and reasoned argument – until you get the topic.
Multiculturalism is the worst ism proclaimed on us by PET and his pinko charter of rights. The Canadian culture derived from British (ie western european) culture is the best ever produced in world history. If anyone wants to live among us Canadians you should conform to OUR standards or get the fuck out.
Some socialist retard tries to tell us that all cultures are equaly relevent and we’re supposed to all fall in line and rejoice in the cultural practices of shitholes like Somalia and Ethiopia?
Kate,
“When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”.
I like this theme because it is spot on.
The consequences, the details where the devil hides, are not always well considered in the heat of a progressive revelation.
And I’ve always thought that our official multicultural position was entirely politically driven with the usual lack of considerations for what was best for the voter.
But here we are and for me, living in the center of the universe, I think we are just going to have to muddle through as best we can as citizens.
In this case Female Genital Mutilation (FMG)is illegal in Canada and challenged by most of those lefty organizations that you mention from time to time http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_fgmicpd.html
This next link has more than you will ever want to know about the details of the practice and how it is used in various countries. http://members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html
We should build a wall around them and go back in a thousand years to see if any intelligent life has evolved.
—Bob C
Well no need for that, they already had two thousand years – just like we had – and look who has rocket science and who is still living in mud huts.
I have never considered Kate to be censoring or selectively editing anything
Me neither, but she *has* deleted posts in the past, and I suspect for good reasons. I’m MUCH more ruthless at my discussion forum, but it’s not a political/newsy site.
The main tenets of multiculturalism are moral and cultural equivalence.
At odds with it is the idea of Universal Human Rights.
A rational person cannot hold both to be true.
irwin daisy,
My original understanding of multiculturalism was that an immigrant to this country was encouraged to maintain, practice and develop any part of his culture as he saw fit as long as these practices didn’t conflict with the laws of the country. When he became a citizen he would be able to add his point of view into our democratic process. Kate’s line about more pavilions at folkfest is a pretty good description of what I thought might be the consequences at the time. To a large extent it did turn out that way with folkfest now an every day occurrence. Overall I think it has been a good and positive part of my life. Just poorly thought out and implemented ass backwards.
“The main tenets of multiculturalism are moral and cultural equivalence.”
Or if I understand you correctly – no one culture is superior to another, anything goes, game over.
I don’t believe that was the original idea of multiculturalism.
It was more like – all cultures can make a positive contribution to the development of our society as an expression of universal human rights.
This is a worthy sentiment but the actual definition of which human rights are universal of course assumes a universal standard by which to make the determination. So I agree with your point and I would add this to the poorly thought out category.
To me the concept of moral and cultural equivalence is only useful as check to any assumtion that one is necessarily right, as a reminder that one’s experience so far on the planet may not have covered all the bases, and that we are all entitled to our opinions.
Africans dont have a very favorble opinion of enviromentalists they generaly dont care for the eco-wackos at all
Have you endorsed any Lyndon LaRouche proclamations lately? The last one looked really good on you.
Mr Talent
“largely positive and contextualized experiences, creating an emergent discursive space for a hitherto “muted group””
From the new Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary:
“discursive, dis ker siv, a. [Fr. discursif, from L. discursus. DISCOURSE] Passing rapidly from one subject to another; desultory; rambling; digressional; argumentative; reasoning; rational”
Well, if you say so.
“Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?”
Are illegals immigrant legal?
Is Bush worse than Hitler?
Is Jean Chretien innocent ( Adscam )
Does masturbation make one blind and grow hair inside the hand?
Does the tooth fairy really exist?
Off topic but not really… why are a lot of your entries not accepting comments? I wrote some pretty good comments but they all got flushed.
Bottom line is that sometimes cultural practices shouldn’t expand to the new world.
Well, I guess it’s all about contextualization.
Given that…I wonder in what context is the previously debated expression of sharia law in Canada valid (Ont Family Court)….. anthropologically speaking?
Does this make “reasonable accommodation” a valid societal pursuit?
When is relativism relative?
Syncro
Certain cultures used to sacrifice virgins to their Gods. Others practice cannibalism. And some would tell us that it is wrong to be opposed to Female “circumcision” for the reason that it is a cultural thing…
Dear Mr. Talent,
One of the features offered by this site is a search function. You can locate it on the sidebar to your left.
Upon doing so, I suggest that you type the words “Lyndon LaRouche” in the box provided, and click “search”.
After you have finished with your “search”, you are invited to return to this thread to offer your correction – at which point you may kindly go f*ck yourself and the Dawg that dragged you in.
Far be it for me to stop stupid people from being stupid.
Having said that, if the children of these nut-bars (growing up in this country) would rather have a new IPOD than mangled genitalia the first parent who tries to force the issue should have their children taken away from them.
Anthropologists and most other academics in the social sciences subscribe to a dangerous and pernicious view of basic human rights – that they are culturally constructed.
This means, that the human rights one has is contingent on where they come from and the colour of their skin.
If human rights are to mean anything, then the only criterion should be that one is human. And that means that if something is a violation of a humans right to dignity of the person in one country, it is a violation in any country.
Along with Femal Genital Mutilation, the colonizing influences of the west also eradicated in various countries the important cultural practices of bride burning, and infant exposure. “Cultural context” is an equally valid argument for reinstituting those horrors as well.
The modern wave of feminism takes a position that is inherently racist – they wouldn’t want Female Genital mutilation practiced on their daughters, but that isn’t because it is “wrong”. Its because it is all right for people to remain ignorant, backward, physically mutilated and enslaved by barbarous traditions so long as they have “brown skin”.
The danger these anthropological and cultural relativists pose is not just to young girls in countries that are slipping back into the dark time before the enlightened influence of western ideas of human rights and dignity. It is to our own culture. Because the social science relativists have their sights set on our own culture here in Canada. They are bent on deconstructing and destroying the validity of our own culture, and the absolute nature of our human rights. A laissez faire relativistic view of human rights is a more dangerous threat to our liberties that an army of tyrants.
Initiation rites are endemic to mankind just as are acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. Differences in initiation rites and acceptable/unacceptable behaviours will remain relative until mankind agrees on the universal. Modifying female genitalia as commonly practiced is more painful and more dangerous than modifying male genitalia as commonly practiced. However so long as we fail to agree with each other regarding universal truth and universal standards the only remaining truth in this world will be “man’s inhumanity to man”.
No, we shouldn’t be trying to effect what these folk do. We should build a wall around them and go back in a thousand years to see if any intelligent life has evolved.
I say carry it one step further and help Darwin out.Sterilize them while they joyfully submit to this mutilation.Can only improve things.
Oh.ABTW….”Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?”
Yup.YOU are the outsiders,so why are you trying to force your “culture” on our society???? Ummmmm???
They say it liberates them from men.
I don’t like that idea.
There is more that’s wrong with this than just the surgery.
However
Male circumcision is the norm in my family. Some folks would like to put an end to that as well.
And I belong to a culture that accepts clitoris piecing, nipple piercing, just about any body part, liposuction, tummy tucks, face lifts, tattoos, and makeup on prepubescent girls.
Is that any a whole lot better?
Ah blast! should read
Is that a whole lot better?
Texas Canuck: I wrote some pretty good comments but they all got flushed.
Me too, but never attribute to selective editing that which is adequately explained by software glitches.
There’s probably a backup somewhere anyway, but it might be a hassle to merge into existing comments.
As a long-time commenter to various forums, it IS a bit disheartening to see one’s well though-out words just disappear into the ether.
My comment got eaten last night too. However it wasn’t that brilliant, so I don’t miss it. ~:D
A)I fail to see how one can “contextualize” removing a whole sensory nerve cluster from the genitalia of an unwilling participant. Particularly when it is done with a handy bit of glass or a sharpened oyster shell, and girls die of it regularly. Shall we contextualize ritual infanticide? How about witch burning? (Non Christian of course! Our culture doesn’t count as a “culture”.)
B)That this “debate” is happening at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting tells you pretty much everything you need to know about anthropology as it has been practiced since the ’80s. PoMo relativism has taken the place of science, and the change is not an improvement.
Sorry about the comments issues. I often write posts in advance and then set them to auto publish later. For some reason, a few of these reject comments until someone goes in and rebuilds them. In other cases, it’s indeed a software glitch – I can’t help that, the server is pretty busy at times and I suspect the problem can be traced to that.
Say I …
These women who want to hack their groins and have mystical power over men can carry on so long as they stay in Toronto and don’t come out West. ;0)
Now that the server/software is happy again, I was previously commenting on the difference of having some extra skin removed by a surgeon or equally qualified person for health and/or religious preferences, and the genital mutilation of females that seems to have no medical value and is often performed by less than qualified butchers. To me the answer is obvious.
Having said that, I wonder about practices of scarification and neck rings, for example. Is it ok to allow cultural practices in their land of origin but ban them when the practice is brought to a land with other cultural values? Or maybe we try to eradicate them everywhere, but then who decides what is acceptable and what is not? Lord knows I wouldn’t want some progressive leftoid telling me what to do. Sometimes life isn’t as easy as one wishes it would be.
As for the dropped comments thing, I have never considered Kate to be censoring or selectively editing anything. If you cross the line, she lets you and the world know or better yet puts the offender in their place with a few well placed words. I actually look forward to the skewering when someone hangs out their STUPID sign.
Honestly, it sounds like the lady quoted has a fetish involving sexual mutilation, and power issues across gender.
From what I recall – sexual physical disfigurement is commonly thought of to be a low grade psychosis – with potential to become extreme in some people.
Kinda sounds like a speech from NAMBLA – rational and reasoned argument – until you get the topic.
Multiculturalism is the worst ism proclaimed on us by PET and his pinko charter of rights. The Canadian culture derived from British (ie western european) culture is the best ever produced in world history. If anyone wants to live among us Canadians you should conform to OUR standards or get the fuck out.
Some socialist retard tries to tell us that all cultures are equaly relevent and we’re supposed to all fall in line and rejoice in the cultural practices of shitholes like Somalia and Ethiopia?
Kate,
“When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”.
I like this theme because it is spot on.
The consequences, the details where the devil hides, are not always well considered in the heat of a progressive revelation.
And I’ve always thought that our official multicultural position was entirely politically driven with the usual lack of considerations for what was best for the voter.
But here we are and for me, living in the center of the universe, I think we are just going to have to muddle through as best we can as citizens.
In this case Female Genital Mutilation (FMG)is illegal in Canada and challenged by most of those lefty organizations that you mention from time to time
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_fgmicpd.html
This next link has more than you will ever want to know about the details of the practice and how it is used in various countries.
http://members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html
We should build a wall around them and go back in a thousand years to see if any intelligent life has evolved.
—Bob C
Well no need for that, they already had two thousand years – just like we had – and look who has rocket science and who is still living in mud huts.
I have never considered Kate to be censoring or selectively editing anything
Me neither, but she *has* deleted posts in the past, and I suspect for good reasons. I’m MUCH more ruthless at my discussion forum, but it’s not a political/newsy site.
The main tenets of multiculturalism are moral and cultural equivalence.
At odds with it is the idea of Universal Human Rights.
A rational person cannot hold both to be true.
irwin daisy,
My original understanding of multiculturalism was that an immigrant to this country was encouraged to maintain, practice and develop any part of his culture as he saw fit as long as these practices didn’t conflict with the laws of the country. When he became a citizen he would be able to add his point of view into our democratic process. Kate’s line about more pavilions at folkfest is a pretty good description of what I thought might be the consequences at the time. To a large extent it did turn out that way with folkfest now an every day occurrence. Overall I think it has been a good and positive part of my life. Just poorly thought out and implemented ass backwards.
“The main tenets of multiculturalism are moral and cultural equivalence.”
Or if I understand you correctly – no one culture is superior to another, anything goes, game over.
I don’t believe that was the original idea of multiculturalism.
It was more like – all cultures can make a positive contribution to the development of our society as an expression of universal human rights.
This is a worthy sentiment but the actual definition of which human rights are universal of course assumes a universal standard by which to make the determination. So I agree with your point and I would add this to the poorly thought out category.
To me the concept of moral and cultural equivalence is only useful as check to any assumtion that one is necessarily right, as a reminder that one’s experience so far on the planet may not have covered all the bases, and that we are all entitled to our opinions.
Africans dont have a very favorble opinion of enviromentalists they generaly dont care for the eco-wackos at all