Stone Ages

December 4, 2007

I agree wholeheartedly with Norman Pflanz, Grand Cherokee and Naresh.

Barbarism is barbarism, even if it is mandated by culture or religion and is vigorously supported by cowardly apologists for the status quo. As someone said, "Those who stay silent in the face of oppression acquiesce in it". Even worse, those who hide under the amoral skirts of cultural relativism only succeed in perpetuating it.

As Naresh pointed out, there may well be some practices in Western cultures and countries that are "not right". But pointing fingers at those practices as a reflexive response to the criticism directed at the teacher-lashing Sudan incident smacks of vengefulness.

Some folks are so riled at what they see as human rights abuses occurring in Western countries that they robotically lash out and vent their anti-Western frustrations whenever someone calls a spade - a barbaric act - occurring in a developing country - a spade. It doesn't matter to them that their anti-Western lashing out is perfectly irrelevant to the specific barbaric teacher-lashing incident.

Barbarism In India

There were a number of barbaric practices in India 100 to 200 years ago. The worst was the practice of "sati", where a widow was burnt live on her dead husband's funeral pyre. This was a cultural norm, and I'm sure there must have been many people during that time who defended that practice not just as a "cultural norm that must be respected and continued", but as a Hindu holy practice.

The British ruled India at that time, and if any British person objected to the practice, I'm sure that apologists for barbarity must have accused the British person of being "Hindu-phobic", just as some people now accuse the Sudan teacher of being Islam-phobic. Looks like religious zealotry and fanaticism - the two bastard children of narrow mindedness and willful ignorance - are still very much alive.

Back then, Indian social reformers (Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar and Maharshi Karve are just two of them) had to walk a fine line. They opposed British rule of India on the one hand. But their aversion to India's own homegrown barbaric practices was thankfully so great that they did not hesitate to do all they could to end those barbaric practices.

For every social reformer, I'm sure there were a dozen - if not hundreds of - cowardly follow-the-herders who simply protested against the British every time the British objected to any barbaric Indian practice. I guess that's why social reformers were considered bold: rather than condoning barbarism, they saw it for what it was and worked to eliminate it.

--Ninny

--- In khushdc@yahoogroups.com, Norman Pflanz wrote:
>
> Rupen, you may not be "advocating" what happened but you are condoning it, which is just as bad and perhaps more cowardly. The Sudanese government's actions are barbaric and violate all standards of international human rights. They should be condemned without any equivocation or justification.