What should society do for “uncivilized cultures” like the Sawi?
I think my world history class is finally catching up to me. When I read this question, the first thing I thought of was "self-determination," one of Wilson's Fourteen Points that he tried to incorporate into the Treaty of Versailles. Self-determination is pretty self-explanatory: it's the right for a group of people to rule themselves. Of course, as those who have studied postwar Europe know, self-determination never became a total reality, since the members of the League of Nations still had a considerable amount of control of the "independent" colonies.
In the same way, I think these "uncivilized cultures" would probably survive if they were left alone. It's not like it's our right to judge what should happen to these cultures anyway, or is it? I don't know. Reading Jihyun's post (click here for link) on this subject made me wonder why we even think we have the right to "do anything" about these kinds of people. By saying that we, as society, should so something about these "uncivilized cultures" seems to be placing these "uncivilized cultures" beneath us. Even by labeling them as "uncivilized" is rather condescending. Who are we to say that we're civilized and they're not? What if that's how they view us? What if they think we're "uncivilized" and one day decide to come and teach us about cannibalism? By even talking about what we should do with "these people," almost seems like we're not even considering what they have to say. It could be that they want to be left alone; maybe that's why they never bothered to try and explore beyond their world. If that's the case, the best society could do for them is to do nothing at all.
Of course, that's society.
Now, Christians, on the other hand, have a different view. I thought Lauren's post (click here for link) about people never hearing God's Word getting a free ride to Heaven was really interesting, and it made me wonder, 'Maybe the best thing we as Christians could do is leave them alone, as well. Then, since they never learn about God and the fact that they have a choice, they'll get a free ticket to Heaven.' Of course, this is probably, most likely, definitely not the case, since Jesus Himself commanded His disciples to go and tell other people about Him.
I don't want people to get the wrong idea though. By portraying Christians and society as two different groups of people does not mean that I think Christians have a right to contact "uncivilized people" while non-Christians don't have this right. I'm saying that, from the Christian perspective, we see it as our duty to go to these people. But I'm not saying that non-Christians can't contact these tribal people. They can if they want to.
In the end, I guess it all has to do with what you believe and what you want to do. I know I kind of got side-tracked from the original question, but I really do think that no one has a "right" to "do something" about "uncivilized people." It's not like everyone agrees on the meanings of these terms, right? And the fact that someone out their is going to disagree with what I'm saying proves that we can never come to terms with what "we, as society, should do," because the only person who can agree with everything I'm saying in this blog is me. And possibly Lauren (click here to see her blog).
4 comments:
I agree with you on some points. I'm not sure about the whole, we should leave them alone because once we tell them about God, then they are all damned if they do not accept. I feel like, God, in his infinite wisdom and mercy, has a greater understanding of the big picture, and will know what to do with his created people who have never heard of him. I think it would be outside of his character to damn thousands and millions of people who lived before Christ right? Another thing that I wonder, is that if Christians didn't go in to teach, then someone else would go in to teach, and although I think Richardson cites extreme examples (lumbermen, croc hunters), I do think that whoever went in would ultimately change the culture and the people. From what I've seen around the world, the spread of western secular materialism is a good example of this. In its own way through media, western secularism is gaining converts every day, in all areas of the world. This to me, is a scary philosophy for people to be accepting, and accepting so wholly, disregarding the negatives. I think in many ways, this philosophy is disintegrating cultures, one Starbuck's at a time. I find it interesting that most people in the class are vehemently opposed to the spread of a belief based on love and peace, yet don't seem that opposed to the spread of western secularism which has pervaded there own lives so radically!
Inhye,
I don't think self-determination would necessarily apply to the Sawi because self-determination is "the right of the people of a certain nation to decide how they want to be governed without the influence of any other country."
The Sawi did not have an organized form of government; neither did it want to have its own independent form of government separate from Indonesia. Furthermore, if the Sawi were to be granted self-determination, how would it be able to survive as an independent state without 1) organized form of government, 2) essential resources to fuel its economy, 3) a military that would be able to protect the nation from more developed countries such as Indonesia or Australia, and 4) a sufficient knowledge of the world to engage in diplomatic relationships with other countries?
In cases such as these, I do think society has a responsibility to help a less, "culturally advanced" group of people to acclimate to the world. However, as you said, that brings up a difficult question: Who are we to intrude into the affairs of another culture? For example, it would be the same as how Iraqis feel about the US after the US interfered in their domestic problems - furious!
I really don't know the answer to that question and I really don't think there will be. We have to trust in our ethics, morals, and, if those fail as well, God.
-Peter
Mr. Rader,
"I find it interesting that most people in the class are vehemently opposed to the spread of a belief based on love and peace, yet don't seem that opposed to the spread of western secularism which has pervaded there own lives so radically!"
I actually found this very interesting as well (more so because I happened to be one of those "people...opposed (?) to the spread of a belief based on love and peace.") I wholeheartedly agree that western secularism has drastically affected other cultures as well; even in Korea, which many consider developed and "civilized," we constantly see the destruction of traditional shops and culture and the emergence of McBusinesses, McStores, McMusic, McDonald's, and other McCapitalist empires.
In this sense, a spread of belief based on love rather than something based on money seems to be the better answer. However, I do not want others in the class to be blinded by the same stereotypic generalization that Richardson was blinded by in his rather "controversial" letter. Not all non-Christians are proponents of western secularism and greed; they too have their morals and values that (although possibly skewed and imperfect) help guide and discipline them. Moreover, it cannot be said that all Christians are disseminators of love and peace. I don't think such division of "black" and "white" is possible; all I know is that there are many shades of gray, and we have to do our best to make sense of which gray is the most pure.
-Peter
Inhye, I found your blog as a whole very interesting. Especially the latest one you posted, the one about "you should think about your life seriously," did make me think about life seriously. Well, I didn't leave a comment there because I thought that one was not one of the questions, but I'm not sure. Anyway, to comment on this particular one, I would have to say you have cleared up some of my prejudices I have not even been aware of until right now. I have always thought myself and my culture to be "civilized", and therefore, other cultures like the Sawi were "uncivilized." However, questioning if I even have the right to judge others led me to realize that I don't. I also agree with yout point that "why should we even bother these "uncivilized" or "civilized" people if we don't even have the right to, or if they desire to stay the same as they have been for centuries?" I have always asked this question while I have been reading this story. I still don't know the answer to this question yet, but I was glad to find someone who has similar thoughts to mine :) Great post, Inhye. (Reply -1)
Post a Comment