'Barbaric' stems from a group of people seeing foreigners at their state wall and hearing them as speaking like 'ba ba ba baba baa ba' so they called them barbarians. I can understand Amnesty wanting to avoid being linked with calling people barbarians.
'Bad' is a pretty fundamental word in our language not easily removed. 'Barbaric' is different. We also don't sling around 'gay', 'retard', and 'ching chong'.
We don't call Asian homosexual mentally-challenged 'retarded ching chong fag' because
a) those qualities are something a person is born with
b) they do not cause grievous harm to others
Meanwhile certain actions (such as practice of FGM) are both done by choice and cause harm to innocent victims. Which is why it is our right to call them barbaric.
Is there any human activity that you would not call barbaric - cannibalism? Slavery?
That's not quite the same thing. A better comparison would be calling FGM 'retarded'. A more apt comparison would be, say, that sex slavery is so 'gringo' (although gringo doesn't really have a negative definition so it's not the best analogy).
Anyhow, I don't truly care one way or another. I'm just saying I see where Amnesty is coming from. Generally I don't modify my language until there's a group specifically offended. That might not even be the case here and I might not mind offending FGM practitioners. But Amnesty is not trying to dehumanize people, because doing so in general leads to worse treatment of people.
I think your mistake is to suppose that we use the adjective 'barbaric' to somehow demean or dehumanize its practitioners. Ie - because they are black/brown/muslim that we allow ourselves to use this language.
That's 100% wrong (and is well addressed in the OP). Barbaric refers to the act itself. If Hungarians or Swedes decide to chop their girls' labia off, I will call that barbaric. And if it offends someone - I don't give a flying fuck. Just like we do not care if slave-owners are offended because we consider their practice barbaric.
I think there might be a growing group that look at 'barbaric' as the classic latin variant of "them frrnrs", so the word changes from 'bad person' to 'slightly different person by culture' and diminishing the impact and altering the meaning...
If there were a better balance of stories in the media then this would be much less of an issue. In the west most of stories about the rest focus on the "barbaric" aspects. FGM, despotic dictators, Islamic extremists. If there was an equal representation of all of the kind, loving Muslims working for peace, and all of the compassionate rural mothers and grandmothers that make up the majority of Africans then people would be less sensitive on these issues. It's not about judging individual practices, it's about our subconscious application of those values to a much broader set of people than what is true or just.
I don't think that censorship is the right word. But for every time you write about FGM, find a story about an inspiring African grandmother and write about that as well.
> I don't think that censorship is the right word. But for every time you write about FGM, find a story about an inspiring African grandmother and write about that as well.
Oh, give me a break! Try writing posting that bullshit the next time someone writes about American corruption.
"If there were a better balance of stories in the media then this would be much less of an issue."
There's never going to be a "better balance of stories in the media" for many purposes, waiting for that is going to make you a very disappointed person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones_Barbarians makes a compelling argument that the Romans slurs on the "barbarians" were grounded in their lack of Roman custom and not based on the qualities we associate with "savages".
It's not about censorship so much as what leads to real change on the ground versus what leads to riled up westerners. If we want them to change we need to lend them a hand. This is an especially complex issue... women become women in these societies, by joining the other women, in this 'rite'. We need to understand them, then help them.
This is indeed a really complex issue because everyone involved in this practice believes it is the correct thing to do. And what's more 50% of the people involved have had it done to them in the past.
To come out point blank and say this is barbaric is to tell 50% of these people that they have been unnecessarily mutilated by their mothers and grandmothers. And some of them will have done it to their daughters. It is human nature that they would deny what you are saying rather than accepting the part they have played and the harm that has been done them.
I and most westerners think this is barbaric but if you were trying to stop people from doing this you might consider telling them that it's been scientifically proven that it's unnecessary and could have a risk of complications. And I imagine this is why Amnesty chooses their language the way they do.
These are all words I feel confident in saying are accurate when applied to coerced female genital mutilation. While I appreciate Amnesty International's position - it's obviously impolitic to call someone these things while sitting at the table having a dialog - it's inappropriate to sacrifice our own moral clarity everywhere else.
Why ? Nobody writes about the technical accomplishments of the Nazis, which were more than considerable. People barely write about the scientific prowess of the Soviets. It doesn't matter. If a society can't control it's worst elements, the best don't matter. If nothing changes, open war between everyone (not just "the west"), and muslims is inevitable. By the way, such open war has been the norm throughout history, not the exception (right up to 1923, when the islamic state fell to Ataturk).
And, frankly, the terrorists have an absurdly good argument : your prophet was a terrorist (he committed genocide through deceit and treachery to further his political goals - and not just once). What possible argument can you put against this as a "moderate" muslim ?
Start reading here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... , frankly, if you're still a muslim after a page of those texts, I have news for you : you're a terrorist supporter, or worse. How can any moral person believe that is moral ? Note that the idea of "islam is right, because muslims killed everyone who thought otherwise" is a recurring theme in muslim "holy" texts. How does terror not fit in with that ?
For the love of God, I hope no muslim turns out to be responsible for Boston.
The most poignant aspect of the article is when they talk about words sounding judgemental. This was something that was stressed in my Sociology course - how practices and beliefs of other cultures should be observed but not judged, because those practices "work for them".
Like the author, I agree that this shouldn't be the case. There are specific things groups like Amnesty International are trying to change - and if you're trying to change those things then you've already passed judgement on them.
19 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 47.2 ms ] thread'Bad' is a pretty fundamental word in our language not easily removed. 'Barbaric' is different. We also don't sling around 'gay', 'retard', and 'ching chong'.
a) those qualities are something a person is born with b) they do not cause grievous harm to others
Meanwhile certain actions (such as practice of FGM) are both done by choice and cause harm to innocent victims. Which is why it is our right to call them barbaric.
Is there any human activity that you would not call barbaric - cannibalism? Slavery?
Anyhow, I don't truly care one way or another. I'm just saying I see where Amnesty is coming from. Generally I don't modify my language until there's a group specifically offended. That might not even be the case here and I might not mind offending FGM practitioners. But Amnesty is not trying to dehumanize people, because doing so in general leads to worse treatment of people.
That's 100% wrong (and is well addressed in the OP). Barbaric refers to the act itself. If Hungarians or Swedes decide to chop their girls' labia off, I will call that barbaric. And if it offends someone - I don't give a flying fuck. Just like we do not care if slave-owners are offended because we consider their practice barbaric.
I don't think that censorship is the right word. But for every time you write about FGM, find a story about an inspiring African grandmother and write about that as well.
Oh, give me a break! Try writing posting that bullshit the next time someone writes about American corruption.
FYI: I'm a bleeding-heart liberal.
There's never going to be a "better balance of stories in the media" for many purposes, waiting for that is going to make you a very disappointed person.
To come out point blank and say this is barbaric is to tell 50% of these people that they have been unnecessarily mutilated by their mothers and grandmothers. And some of them will have done it to their daughters. It is human nature that they would deny what you are saying rather than accepting the part they have played and the harm that has been done them.
I and most westerners think this is barbaric but if you were trying to stop people from doing this you might consider telling them that it's been scientifically proven that it's unnecessary and could have a risk of complications. And I imagine this is why Amnesty chooses their language the way they do.
These are all words I feel confident in saying are accurate when applied to coerced female genital mutilation. While I appreciate Amnesty International's position - it's obviously impolitic to call someone these things while sitting at the table having a dialog - it's inappropriate to sacrifice our own moral clarity everywhere else.
And, frankly, the terrorists have an absurdly good argument : your prophet was a terrorist (he committed genocide through deceit and treachery to further his political goals - and not just once). What possible argument can you put against this as a "moderate" muslim ?
Start reading here : http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0... , frankly, if you're still a muslim after a page of those texts, I have news for you : you're a terrorist supporter, or worse. How can any moral person believe that is moral ? Note that the idea of "islam is right, because muslims killed everyone who thought otherwise" is a recurring theme in muslim "holy" texts. How does terror not fit in with that ?
For the love of God, I hope no muslim turns out to be responsible for Boston.
Sometimes pride interferes with the ability to do good.
Like the author, I agree that this shouldn't be the case. There are specific things groups like Amnesty International are trying to change - and if you're trying to change those things then you've already passed judgement on them.