So, to answer the question, I don't think there is much society could or should do for these different cultures like the Sawi. The only thing our society could do for these cultures such as the Sawi, is to introduce them with technology that might enhance their life and spread the Gospel so they could find the flaws in their cultures themselves. Like Don Richardson in the Peace Child, we should be respectful of other cultures and only introduce better technology so that it might help the people. We should try to show them the flaws within their cultures, but we should not try to "civilize" other cultures because they do not meet our standards of civilization. If we try to do so, we would only be invading their national identity and way of living. For an example, when the Americans believed they had to "help" the uncivilized Native Americans by introducing the American society.
Did the Americans actually help these Native Indians by "civilizing" their culture? My answer is no. Surely, Americans enhanced way of living, but on the contrary, the Native Americans have lost their national identity in many different ways and basically became Americanized.
In conclusion, I think our society should help other cultures to live a better life, but try not to invade their pure culture.
I never thought about this question from this angle. I thought it was really interesting to examine a culture as a pure identity. I feel that, when you look at it like that, culture becomes precious and should not be interfered with. However, when I look at the Sawi's culture, it needed to be "fixed". Introducing the bible wasn't enough for Don Richardson because the Sawi saw Judas as the hero. Don Richardson had to get personal and immersed in the culture to think of how to share the true message. However, you are right, he didn't force views on the Sawi, he told them that their wickedness was wrong, but didn't severely punish them. He got into the culture to understand it, and then gained trust and status in order to correct the Sawi. I think more things like this need to be done. When a person adapts cross-cultural identity, they can change the whole identity of the culture. Great post and insight, you have a great perception!
ReplyDeleteI feel like saying, difference alone does not constitute bad or good. A difference is a difference -- sometimes they are for the better, sometimes for the worse. A hasty error we should avoid, including in our interactions with other cultures, is setting the criterion for the need to change on difference alone. The attitude, in the form of a statement, I want to avoid is "they're not like me, therefore they are wrong, period." At the same time, amidst what might be a growth in the acceptance of the idea of tolerance, we have to also remember that difference alone does not necessiate a lack of need to change either. And thus, I'm also against the notion, "they're them, and therefore they are right, period." Humans are imperfect -- that places both people of other cultures and ourselves at the position of possibly having something wrong with the way we live; they might need to fix something that we are doing properly, or they might be doing just fine and we don't need to intervene (or maybe they are doing what's right and we're in the wrong, and we could learn something from them). What I mean to say is that diversity itself does not necessiate a right or wrong, a good or bad; what we need to see is what the diversity is about. How are they different from us? What makes the difference? Does the difference have ethical or moral implications, or is it just the matter of preferences, convenience (for example, it convenient to eat rice in a rice-growing region as a staple food; it's convenient to eat sago in a sago growing region, unless rice becomes an equally viable food option), or anything else that doesn't imply a real need to change?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I think there are two main areas that's generally alright to spread: truly essential universal principles(and this alone is a subject on which much debate and discussion could be done) and introduction of tools and technology to better the lives of the people of concern (not necessarily to coerce the people to use something, but they could choose to use those or allow use of those). As a Christian, I believe that a universal truth that needs acceptance and thus needs to be spread (but I don't believe in coerced faith; you can't force people into believing or converting by the edge of a sword) is the gospel of Jesus Christ - such needs to be delivered to everyone: those in the modernized cities, those in the farms of modernized countries, and, to agree with Daniel, to the people like the Sawi who don't have a modern style of living.