Can traditions be broken completely?
What makes faith so important?
Are primitive cultures, like the Sawi, necessary in our present world?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Ninth Entry: Student-based Question: Does everyone have a specific culture? Define culture!
Yes, I do believe that everyone has a specific culture to which he or she belongs, because everyone likes to be like everyone else. What I mean by that is that people try to mimic others, and to belong to a community where they can feel involved and comfortable.
I define culture to be anything people can agree with regardless of a region. Language, food, manner, respect, clothes, tradition, logic are but a few components of a culture. For example, people agree to speak in one language to more easily communicate with each other. Another example is behavior. In ITGS class, Mrs. Dewey has frequently mentioned that Koreans are one of the only peoples who would be willing to share music and movies for free, probably because they want to belong to a group, unlike people in other countries like the United States who are more individualized. This particular behavior can be called a culture because people in Korea agree to share music and movies without giving anyone any financial burden.
There is no one who disagrees with everything, and that means everyone agrees with something. Therefore, everyone has his or her own specific culture, and that does not have to be just one culture in which one feels completely involved. For instance, I agree with some American culture and some Korean culture, and that does not mean I do not have a culture to which I belong since I’m not completely involved in one. It just means that I often times find myself comfortable being around both cultures. I speak English and Korean. I show more respect to the elderly than I would to people my age, but I also believe no one should be favored or prejudiced because of one’s age. I like to be in groups, but I am individualized as well. Thus, this is what makes every “culture” in which one finds oneself comfortable and involved unique.
I define culture to be anything people can agree with regardless of a region. Language, food, manner, respect, clothes, tradition, logic are but a few components of a culture. For example, people agree to speak in one language to more easily communicate with each other. Another example is behavior. In ITGS class, Mrs. Dewey has frequently mentioned that Koreans are one of the only peoples who would be willing to share music and movies for free, probably because they want to belong to a group, unlike people in other countries like the United States who are more individualized. This particular behavior can be called a culture because people in Korea agree to share music and movies without giving anyone any financial burden.
There is no one who disagrees with everything, and that means everyone agrees with something. Therefore, everyone has his or her own specific culture, and that does not have to be just one culture in which one feels completely involved. For instance, I agree with some American culture and some Korean culture, and that does not mean I do not have a culture to which I belong since I’m not completely involved in one. It just means that I often times find myself comfortable being around both cultures. I speak English and Korean. I show more respect to the elderly than I would to people my age, but I also believe no one should be favored or prejudiced because of one’s age. I like to be in groups, but I am individualized as well. Thus, this is what makes every “culture” in which one finds oneself comfortable and involved unique.
Eighth Entry: How would uncivilized cultures react upon receiving technology beyond their comprehension?
Since it is radically different from the civilized culture, the uncivilized culture like the Sawi will feel repulsion from it, of course. However, that does not necessarily mean that they will be permanantly opposed to the civilized culture. In fact, once they become aware of the advantages of the civilized culture, they will be more prone to accepting the civilized culture, I think. However, I think the civilized side should put sufficient amount of efforts to make the uncivilized people understand and accept the new culture because like the question asserts, at first the new culture will be exotic and "beyond their comprehension." Therefore, I think it is the responsibility that the civilized people should bear in order to bring about desirable changes in the primitive culture. An excellent example would be the Sawi people accepting the religion Christianity, and to follow the instructions suggested by the Christians such as getting educated. Since the Sawi culture and the modern culture clashed in about their moral standards, at first there had been conflicts between them such as the Sawi people killing the people who wore clothes and looked intelligent. However, due to incessant efforts by Don Richardson and his companions, some Sawi people had gradually begun paying attention to Christianity, and eventually some, on their own, have decided to follow God. To me, it's amazing how Don Richardson could have persuaded the canibalistic Sawi people, and I think it's because the Bible and its words spoke the truth to the Sawi people.
If I were living in the uncivilized culture and have encountered the civilized people or civilized culture trying to change my lifestyle, I would examine exactly what advantages I would gain by doing so first. Once it seems apparent that the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages, I would open my perspective and accept the new values.
Repulsion and opposition are bound to occur when different cultures, especially between ones with and without technological development, and so I do NOT blame the Sawi people or hold them accountable for the lives of people they have killed, although it could have been prevented or at least reduced. The key to solving the problem is the ability and willingness to accept new ideas as well as preserving its own traditional values from both sides.
If I were living in the uncivilized culture and have encountered the civilized people or civilized culture trying to change my lifestyle, I would examine exactly what advantages I would gain by doing so first. Once it seems apparent that the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages, I would open my perspective and accept the new values.
Repulsion and opposition are bound to occur when different cultures, especially between ones with and without technological development, and so I do NOT blame the Sawi people or hold them accountable for the lives of people they have killed, although it could have been prevented or at least reduced. The key to solving the problem is the ability and willingness to accept new ideas as well as preserving its own traditional values from both sides.
Seventh Entry: How did Christianity change this culture?
Christianity is a religion, and religion is but one aspect of culture. However, it has succeeded in changing the Sawi culture in almost every way. But I believe this is no coincidence, because religion, especially Christianity, is powerful.
Although it takes only one step for a person to be a Christian, which would be to have faith in God, it also asks him or her to change. He or she is advised to behave according to what the Bible instructs, and this would especially directly oppose many aspects of the Sawi culture since their moral values are radically different from ours. Due to Christianity, their traditional values such as treachery and cannibalism have been challenged. Some have turned to Christianity, and others have decided follow the path of their tradition, the Sawi culture.
Through countless parables, proverbs, and stories, the Bible accentuates the importance of love, honesty, respect, and peace. And this will totally change the Sawi culture because the life of the Sawi people is basically based upon killing and deception.
In my opinion, although this could be viewed as destruction of culture and tradition, it should be acceptable because Christianity abides by the general moral standard with which 99% of the population of the world now agrees – don’t kill and be honest.
Although not a direct change caused by Christianity, education is something that will change the Sawi culture in the long run. Don Richardson encouraged people from the Sawi to get educated. Education is key to make a region get civilized because people act according to what they know; for instance, if one is taught not to steal, it is more likely that one will not try to steal than to deceive others. Moreover, the more people get educated, the more people will have more knowledge to develop the Sawi culture for the better.
Christianity has caused some immediate changes, and will bring about greater changes in the long run. To me, it looks like the changes that are caused can outweigh the potential destruction and loss of the Sawi culture.
Although it takes only one step for a person to be a Christian, which would be to have faith in God, it also asks him or her to change. He or she is advised to behave according to what the Bible instructs, and this would especially directly oppose many aspects of the Sawi culture since their moral values are radically different from ours. Due to Christianity, their traditional values such as treachery and cannibalism have been challenged. Some have turned to Christianity, and others have decided follow the path of their tradition, the Sawi culture.
Through countless parables, proverbs, and stories, the Bible accentuates the importance of love, honesty, respect, and peace. And this will totally change the Sawi culture because the life of the Sawi people is basically based upon killing and deception.
In my opinion, although this could be viewed as destruction of culture and tradition, it should be acceptable because Christianity abides by the general moral standard with which 99% of the population of the world now agrees – don’t kill and be honest.
Although not a direct change caused by Christianity, education is something that will change the Sawi culture in the long run. Don Richardson encouraged people from the Sawi to get educated. Education is key to make a region get civilized because people act according to what they know; for instance, if one is taught not to steal, it is more likely that one will not try to steal than to deceive others. Moreover, the more people get educated, the more people will have more knowledge to develop the Sawi culture for the better.
Christianity has caused some immediate changes, and will bring about greater changes in the long run. To me, it looks like the changes that are caused can outweigh the potential destruction and loss of the Sawi culture.
Sixth Entry: How different is your modern culture from the Sawi culture?
Obviously, "primitive" culture and "civilized" culture must have huge discrepancies, if the definition of "civilization" means to be scientifically and technologically advanced. In spite of the differences, nearly every culture seems to share one similarity - religion.
And yet, despite the fact that both types of cultures have a certain set of beliefs that on which they base their actions, those beliefs seem to be radically different, because the Sawi believe in cannibalism and treachery, whereas we don't. In fact, Killing and lying are diametrically opposed to the "civilized" moral standards. However, I don't believe that this necessarily indicates that the Sawi culture doesn't have any moral standards. It'd be rather safe to say that their moral standards are significantly different from ours. As I have encountered with rather shocking cultures, I have eventually come to a point where I try to understand and respect every culture, instead of demeaning all the other cultures in an openly condescending way; this is why I specifically define what "civilized" means because the word itself can already cause some prejudice.
Another discrepency between our modern culture and the Sawi culture is the degree to which technology, science, and most importatnly, interaction have impacted the society. The Sawi, on the other hand, doesn't. We can't talk about the development of modern society without mentioning technological development and its impact on our daily lives. Right after we get up, we put on glasses, look at the clock, take a shower, go to work, look at the blue screen for hours, talk on the cell phone while moving to a different work place in a car, and so forth. No one can can imagine how chaotic the world is going to be without technology. However, the Sawi has no cell phone, no computer, nearly no medical treatment, or any technologically developed tool that helps make the life convinient- they are primitive. Our modern culture takes advantage of interation in order to mutually benefit each other most of the times, yet the Sawi culture values self-sufficiency. No one from the Sawi culture bothers to know what's going on beyond the region they live. The only interaction that would ever happen is a war. The Sawi uses interaction and communication as an oppotunity for deception or the expansion of their territory. Thus, the purpose of interation is radically different, probably because we and the Sawi people have almost opposite moral standards.
Inherently, our modern culture and the Sawi culture are very differnt. It is almost the opposite in nearly every aspect of culture. Yet no one is to say which one is better, because "difference" is different from better and worse... I guess one should try to involve onself with one he or she most agrees with? (I'm afraid to involve myself with cannibalism, for sure.)
And yet, despite the fact that both types of cultures have a certain set of beliefs that on which they base their actions, those beliefs seem to be radically different, because the Sawi believe in cannibalism and treachery, whereas we don't. In fact, Killing and lying are diametrically opposed to the "civilized" moral standards. However, I don't believe that this necessarily indicates that the Sawi culture doesn't have any moral standards. It'd be rather safe to say that their moral standards are significantly different from ours. As I have encountered with rather shocking cultures, I have eventually come to a point where I try to understand and respect every culture, instead of demeaning all the other cultures in an openly condescending way; this is why I specifically define what "civilized" means because the word itself can already cause some prejudice.
Another discrepency between our modern culture and the Sawi culture is the degree to which technology, science, and most importatnly, interaction have impacted the society. The Sawi, on the other hand, doesn't. We can't talk about the development of modern society without mentioning technological development and its impact on our daily lives. Right after we get up, we put on glasses, look at the clock, take a shower, go to work, look at the blue screen for hours, talk on the cell phone while moving to a different work place in a car, and so forth. No one can can imagine how chaotic the world is going to be without technology. However, the Sawi has no cell phone, no computer, nearly no medical treatment, or any technologically developed tool that helps make the life convinient- they are primitive. Our modern culture takes advantage of interation in order to mutually benefit each other most of the times, yet the Sawi culture values self-sufficiency. No one from the Sawi culture bothers to know what's going on beyond the region they live. The only interaction that would ever happen is a war. The Sawi uses interaction and communication as an oppotunity for deception or the expansion of their territory. Thus, the purpose of interation is radically different, probably because we and the Sawi people have almost opposite moral standards.
Inherently, our modern culture and the Sawi culture are very differnt. It is almost the opposite in nearly every aspect of culture. Yet no one is to say which one is better, because "difference" is different from better and worse... I guess one should try to involve onself with one he or she most agrees with? (I'm afraid to involve myself with cannibalism, for sure.)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Fifth Entry: What should society do for "uncivilized cultures"?
Before I try to answer this question, I think I should try to define, or try to find what the meaning of "uncivilized" means. Even before, that, I want to make sure that everyone should respect every culture regardless of how much "civilized" or "uncivilized" it may be, because to me, the fact that one distinct type of culture has been developed and preserved for such a long time is already of great significance and thus deserves respect.
Civilization on Dictionary.com means "an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached" or to have "modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology." When one takes either one as the definition of the term civilize, one is bound to say that the Sawi culture, then, is definitely not "civilized," because they don't have the greatest scientists and developments; they have no system of government whatsoever. Treachery is ideal!
What should the society do about them, then? Even if their core beliefs are clearly against what most people believe in nowadays... I say that no enforcement is needed or required although I wouldn't oppose gradual change. Personally, I do not believe in treachery or cannibalism, and so I would be happy if those elements of the culture would be eliminated; however, the fact that I do not agree with the certain tenets of the culture does not give me any license to mock or destroy the culture. Thus, we shouldn't destroy the culture altogether. It should be preserved as much as it could be, just like people respect other "normal," and "civilized" culture.
Then, do we just leave them alone? Well, I'm being ambiguous here (as always), I'd say no again. Like I've mentioned earlier, SOME necessary change is inevitable, and vital. But, radical change will induce rebellions and repulsion, and that is not what society wants out of it, of course. Then, how gradual is "gradual change" and how fast is "radical change"? That I don't know again, but I have a few questions.
The two key beliefs that disagree with what most people believe in nowadays are treachery and cannibalism.I have become aware of the fact that the Sawi people were not ORIGINALLY cannibalistic; therefore, it is not their inherent or innate culture that has been with them for centuries. Rather, it was developed or begun to be practiced because of lack of food back in the history. Then, it also shows that they originally did not desire to eat each other up, UNLESS there were drought or food shortage. And now, there isn't. Thus, to me, it sounds logical that they go BACK to their original state on cannibalism - Don't eat people. How to tell them? I'm pretty sure not all Sawi people are aware of what I have just stated, because it has probably been orally passed down onto generations. Thus, translaters will be necessary for this process to be carried out. I believe this issue will be much more easily dealt with than treachery can be.
Now let me think about how to change (not "get rid of") treachery. Honestly, I don't see a solution. Cannibalism, yes it did not originate when this culture was formed and so on and so forth. But treachery, that's the legend! That is what men live for! To trick others! To me and other people who are "civilized," it would sound just as immoral as cannibalism would. However, I think the society should be much more careful about how to approach this one, because treachery is a belief, not what one practices. Beliefs are harder to change, I believe.
My suggestion would be simple; make them imagine how it would feel to realize his best friend for 50 years has just betrayed you for a bag of food. If I were the Sawi, no matter how long I have believed in or been oblivious of that, I would change right away. But that is up to them, and I think this is the maximum degree to which society should show its respect for the Sawi people or other primitive cultures - correct explicitly egregious behavior, tolerate, respect, and take time for the belief system to change.
In dealing with boh issues, I have mentioned one common factor. Education. Education is the answer. In the story, some Sawi people end up going to Universities and receive great education. I believe in the potential of the Sawi people, or just about any primitive tribes. Education will "gradually" lead them towards the better, because humans are bound to act according to what they learned to be socially and morally acceptable, not what they thought might be okay.
Civilization on Dictionary.com means "an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached" or to have "modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology." When one takes either one as the definition of the term civilize, one is bound to say that the Sawi culture, then, is definitely not "civilized," because they don't have the greatest scientists and developments; they have no system of government whatsoever. Treachery is ideal!
What should the society do about them, then? Even if their core beliefs are clearly against what most people believe in nowadays... I say that no enforcement is needed or required although I wouldn't oppose gradual change. Personally, I do not believe in treachery or cannibalism, and so I would be happy if those elements of the culture would be eliminated; however, the fact that I do not agree with the certain tenets of the culture does not give me any license to mock or destroy the culture. Thus, we shouldn't destroy the culture altogether. It should be preserved as much as it could be, just like people respect other "normal," and "civilized" culture.
Then, do we just leave them alone? Well, I'm being ambiguous here (as always), I'd say no again. Like I've mentioned earlier, SOME necessary change is inevitable, and vital. But, radical change will induce rebellions and repulsion, and that is not what society wants out of it, of course. Then, how gradual is "gradual change" and how fast is "radical change"? That I don't know again, but I have a few questions.
The two key beliefs that disagree with what most people believe in nowadays are treachery and cannibalism.I have become aware of the fact that the Sawi people were not ORIGINALLY cannibalistic; therefore, it is not their inherent or innate culture that has been with them for centuries. Rather, it was developed or begun to be practiced because of lack of food back in the history. Then, it also shows that they originally did not desire to eat each other up, UNLESS there were drought or food shortage. And now, there isn't. Thus, to me, it sounds logical that they go BACK to their original state on cannibalism - Don't eat people. How to tell them? I'm pretty sure not all Sawi people are aware of what I have just stated, because it has probably been orally passed down onto generations. Thus, translaters will be necessary for this process to be carried out. I believe this issue will be much more easily dealt with than treachery can be.
Now let me think about how to change (not "get rid of") treachery. Honestly, I don't see a solution. Cannibalism, yes it did not originate when this culture was formed and so on and so forth. But treachery, that's the legend! That is what men live for! To trick others! To me and other people who are "civilized," it would sound just as immoral as cannibalism would. However, I think the society should be much more careful about how to approach this one, because treachery is a belief, not what one practices. Beliefs are harder to change, I believe.
My suggestion would be simple; make them imagine how it would feel to realize his best friend for 50 years has just betrayed you for a bag of food. If I were the Sawi, no matter how long I have believed in or been oblivious of that, I would change right away. But that is up to them, and I think this is the maximum degree to which society should show its respect for the Sawi people or other primitive cultures - correct explicitly egregious behavior, tolerate, respect, and take time for the belief system to change.
In dealing with boh issues, I have mentioned one common factor. Education. Education is the answer. In the story, some Sawi people end up going to Universities and receive great education. I believe in the potential of the Sawi people, or just about any primitive tribes. Education will "gradually" lead them towards the better, because humans are bound to act according to what they learned to be socially and morally acceptable, not what they thought might be okay.
Fourth Entry: How does faith relate to the world in which we live in?
This is originally a reply I had written after reading one of Jihyun's posts. But I was inspired to expand more about this word faith afterwards, so yeah. (a lot will overlap)
"Faith" to me, had always something to do with religion. Moreover, it isn't real; it's abstract. I have always been inclined to think that "you believe in something that you can't see because you're weak." At times this statement would even motivate me to work harder because I have been such a bigot; "I need no help from anybody, and I can do anything on my own. I'm not weak, I don't have to rely on anything or anybdody." Therefore, faith didn't really have anything to do with my life and my world because I have never been religious, and I find difficulty trusting something that has not yet been proven.However, after reading Jihyun's post, I have realized that just like everyone else, faith drives my actions literally EVERYDAY. The examples she gave, such as in the Trust Game, doing business, forming friendships and relationships, were more than enough, very true, and very accurate. I was completely taken aback when I found out that EVERYDAY, I have always been doing what I had thought was silly, weak, abstract, unreal, impossible, and illogical - I hated to discover that I have always contradicted myself. But now, I don't think so. I now think and agree with you that faith is the very essential factor that enables the life cycle to keep going around. I have even realized that we fail when we have no faith. I can make a hundred free-throws when I have faith that I can do it. I can't when I'm scared and nervous and starting to doubt about my abilities. I can do a hard math or physics question (hopefully) when I have faith in my brian. I can't when I think it's just too hard for me and is beyond my capabilities and give up.
Then, I questioned myself, if God is the one who governs the world and most importantly, ME and MY LIFE, aren't I supposed to deduce, based on what I've learned about faith, that if I have no faith in God, I will fail in life? It strikes me odd, because there are numerous people who are financially successful, (well I know money isn't all in life, but some of these people are satisfies with this, and I value satisfaction most in life.) and who are satisfied with that. And I know somewhere in the world there must exist some people who are completely content with their lives because they believe in some other religion.
One thing is for sure. Now I feel more "secured" or "logical" to believe in Christianity or any religion, because I now admit that I have always believed in other things about life, such as "I don't care how much you raise now, because I have faith that the next card will be a 5, which will complete my straight, 4-5-6-7-8, and take all your money (it's poker, haha). And it makes much more sense to me to put faith in what is essential for me and my life, what really counts, what really matters, what really is important, if I have been putting tremendous amount of trust everytime I play a pointless card game - I don't wish to contradict myself again.
Faith now gives me a headache, but it's definitely something I should ponder about more often :)
"Faith" to me, had always something to do with religion. Moreover, it isn't real; it's abstract. I have always been inclined to think that "you believe in something that you can't see because you're weak." At times this statement would even motivate me to work harder because I have been such a bigot; "I need no help from anybody, and I can do anything on my own. I'm not weak, I don't have to rely on anything or anybdody." Therefore, faith didn't really have anything to do with my life and my world because I have never been religious, and I find difficulty trusting something that has not yet been proven.However, after reading Jihyun's post, I have realized that just like everyone else, faith drives my actions literally EVERYDAY. The examples she gave, such as in the Trust Game, doing business, forming friendships and relationships, were more than enough, very true, and very accurate. I was completely taken aback when I found out that EVERYDAY, I have always been doing what I had thought was silly, weak, abstract, unreal, impossible, and illogical - I hated to discover that I have always contradicted myself. But now, I don't think so. I now think and agree with you that faith is the very essential factor that enables the life cycle to keep going around. I have even realized that we fail when we have no faith. I can make a hundred free-throws when I have faith that I can do it. I can't when I'm scared and nervous and starting to doubt about my abilities. I can do a hard math or physics question (hopefully) when I have faith in my brian. I can't when I think it's just too hard for me and is beyond my capabilities and give up.
Then, I questioned myself, if God is the one who governs the world and most importantly, ME and MY LIFE, aren't I supposed to deduce, based on what I've learned about faith, that if I have no faith in God, I will fail in life? It strikes me odd, because there are numerous people who are financially successful, (well I know money isn't all in life, but some of these people are satisfies with this, and I value satisfaction most in life.) and who are satisfied with that. And I know somewhere in the world there must exist some people who are completely content with their lives because they believe in some other religion.
One thing is for sure. Now I feel more "secured" or "logical" to believe in Christianity or any religion, because I now admit that I have always believed in other things about life, such as "I don't care how much you raise now, because I have faith that the next card will be a 5, which will complete my straight, 4-5-6-7-8, and take all your money (it's poker, haha). And it makes much more sense to me to put faith in what is essential for me and my life, what really counts, what really matters, what really is important, if I have been putting tremendous amount of trust everytime I play a pointless card game - I don't wish to contradict myself again.
Faith now gives me a headache, but it's definitely something I should ponder about more often :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
