Asian History & Modern Society | Asian American Poll

ASIAN HISTORY & MODERN SOCIETY
(Updated Tuesday, Apr 1, 2008, 05:25:26 PM to reflect the 100 most recent valid responses.)

CONTACT US | ADVERTISING INFO

© 1996-2013 Asian Media Group Inc
No part of the contents of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission.

WHAT YOU SAY

[This page is closed to new input. --Ed.]

to rare stuff

RE: "...traditional people must...translate the archaic roots of their cultures into a modern context...the archaic essences of the traditional cultures/religions (and not the philosophy) are put into a sensible context with the modern world including modern technology."

Can you give an example of this, please?

MLK Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 15:28:44 (PDT)

Rare stuff--

I don't understand what you mean by 'betterments of mankind' as mere specializations of mankind. Could you elaborate for me?

I agree that it is very important for traditional people to put their culture in context to the modern age. I also agree that many people in the West are insensitive towards cultural values of some areas in the world relative to modernity. (I admit, as you can see from my debate with AC Dropout, I am one of these individuals.)

But I don't see why you don't see Christianity as an ancient religion. Christianity is an offshoot of ancient Judaism which is just as old as Central Asian Shamanism, Indian Hinduism, Thai Buddhism, etc etc. Afterall, Nazis called the Jews and Arabs 'orientals.'

I think in respect to talking about redeeming Asian people's pride in their identity, it is important to discuss the falsehood that "human rights" is a "western concept" or democracy is a "western concept". They are not. They are merely concepts. When I advocate economic devlopment of the global south, i'm not doing it with the goal of creating the South in the image of the global North--I'm merely suggesting that the West seems to be better off for adapting certain values and losing certain values. The East can learn from the successes and failures of the West without reinventing the wheel.
ka Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 12:53:16 (PDT)

Hi AC--

Well, I do agree with you that if a woman chooses to go into the porn industry, I have no problem with that. What i'm talking about are social/economic pressures that lead women into going into unfavorable economic positions. What I'm talking about are cases such as child exploitation--would you say, based on your relative morality, that children selling sex is acceptable in certain cultures, so we should respect it? Am I being a cultural-chauvinist when I denounce it? Poor regions of the world are known to sell their daughters into these depraved states, in Cambodia, Laos, etc. Now, since they have "parental" support for doing these things, would you tell me that I shouldn't condemn such occurrences?

Every human being has a conscience and makes personal decisions each day on how to live and what ideals he/she should strive for. In this sense, what I'm doing is in no-way different from countries that choose to ignore these issues. Inaction is an action of it's own. What is the point of discussing relative/absolute morality? If I killed your loved-one, would you let me go, saying "gee, that is good in his eyes, I shouldn't castigate him for doing something he believes to be right." Would you reply by saying that you would take pragmatic responses based on survival instinct? I as a rational human being, believes that the ecomic status of fellow human being is definitely within my interests, as each individual is a fellow brother human. Do I not benefit from the betterment of others? Is this relative? Who cares?

If a mother wishese to sell her internal organs to send her children to college, and if the state allows her to die in this fashion following the fashions of your definition of relative morality, I think most people would say that such a government is clearly harmful to society.

AC, are you telling me that economic development is not neccessarily "good" for these other cultures and therefore, I shouldn't advocate the economic development of these region? The issue here isn't whether my morality is absolute or relative, it is whether YOU or others in the developing world believe my proposition is 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' or 'evil', 'beneficial' or 'harmful', 'practical' or 'unpractical.'

Last time I checked the "West" wasn't the only country to advise public policy based on notions of justice, truth, and equality. China, South Africa, India, and every nation on earth implements public policy and enacts laws in some ideals about good and evil.
ka Wednesday, May 01, 2002 at 12:32:33 (PDT)

white girl,

homosexuality is not an original part of all cultures of the world. Fact is that it is legitimate in SOME traditional cultures (also in some Asian cultures). Nonetheless some Western people who want to "modernize" the East's values do not respect that other traditional non-Westerners (like me) are homophobic. They talk of "human rights" and forget that some non-Westerners' societies are possibly not mature enough to deal with the new rules brought by foreigners without losing their self-esteem.
rare stuff Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 16:32:17 (PDT)

ka,

first of all I have to agree with you in the point that I cannot contribute to a betterment of mankind.I understand "betterments of mankind" as mere specializations of mankind which are part of a social evolution -but this does not indicate that this social evolution wouldn't have a deadly end in the future.

I stress the spiritual difference between East and West because in the East some archaic spirituality has survived; in the West this has been eradicated by the Christianity of the Middle Ages.
From my point of view traditional people must learn to translate especially the archaic roots of their cultures into a modern context.
Reviving spirituality would mean to me that the archaic essences of the traditional cultures/religions (and not the philosophy) are put into a sensible context with the modern world including modern technology.

rare stuff Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 16:13:38 (PDT)

ka,

In your second paragraph with the 3 questions about women and modernations. If the women choose to lifestyle it is their choice. That is one of the fundimental aspect to "free," self determination.

What I am pointing out to you is the women who choice to enter the sex industry, participate in extra-marital affairs, and arranged marriages (mail order brides); do not share the same sense of morality as you. However, their morality is as every bit as valid as yours.

Your last paragraph basically states you believe in absolute good. That would be predicated by fact there is absolute morality. Which would be dictated by absolute teachings. And it absolutely does not exist on this planet.

Which is the delemma all those who believe in good and evil face on this planet. Either you spend you resources educating everyone with your ideal of good. Or spend you resources killing everyone who does not believe in your definition of good. Or you expand your defintition of good to include everyone.

The rise of econmonic condition in any given location on this planet is not based on good. However, economic alliances are usually based on people who subscribe to the same definition of good.
AC Dropout Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 10:55:27 (PDT)

AC, thank you for clarifying some of your views. However I still don't unstand these "American Morality" you accuse me of proselytizing.

You said that people in the world made not want to reach my view of progress seeped with my "American Morality." Are you suggesting that women in the developing world would choose to work in communes, earn less, and dedicate their life to prayers? Or are you saying that the women of the third world aren't desperate enough to earn money at the expense of industrialization and urbanization? Or are you saying that women of the third world want development without the intervention of the World Bank and IMF which is often accused of increasing world poverty? I still do not understand what exactly is this American Morality you talk about.

American Morality is an amalgam of world morality--it is not simply influenced by European morality, but emcompasses native american, mid-eastern, asian, and even marxist world view, just like any of the world morality. Why do I point out the obvious? Morality is dynamic, as human culture is dynamic--I think it is simple to say that there are clear instances when murder is murder, good is good. Do women of the 3rd world want to live in poverty? I think not--I think there is nothing particularly American about being rich.
ka Tuesday, April 30, 2002 at 09:06:46 (PDT)

NEWEST COMMENTS | EARLIER COMMENTS