Six-year-old Mehran Rafaat is like many girls her age. She likes to be the center of attention. She is often frustrated when things do not go her way. Like her three older sisters, she is eager to discover the world outside the family’s apartment in their middle-class neighborhood of Kabul.It's an old tradition, you see.
But when their mother, Azita Rafaat, a member of Parliament, dresses the children for school in the morning, there is one important difference. Mehran’s sisters put on black dresses and head scarves, tied tightly over their ponytails. For Mehran, it’s green pants, a white shirt and a necktie, then a pat from her mother over her spiky, short black hair. After that, her daughter is out the door — as an Afghan boy.
There are no statistics about how many Afghan girls masquerade as boys. But when asked, Afghans of several generations can often tell a story of a female relative, friend, neighbor or co-worker who grew up disguised as a boy. To those who know, these children are often referred to as neither “daughter” nor “son” in conversation, but as “bacha posh,” which literally means “dressed up as a boy” in Dari.
Mrs. Rafaat had grown up in Kabul, where she was a top student, speaking six languages and nurturing high-flying dreams of becoming a doctor. But once her father forced her to become the second wife of her first cousin, she had to submit to being an illiterate farmer’s wife, in a rural house without running water and electricity, where the widowed mother-in-law ruled, and where she was expected to help care for the cows, sheep and chickens. She did not do well.And neither will Afghanistan while they do that.
In an effort to preserve her job and placate her husband, as well as fending off the threat of his getting a third wife, she proposed to her husband that they make their youngest daughter look like a son.That's what you get when you treat half of humanity as worse than cattle, morally depraved and filthy by definition. Some have to "scrub up" to appear human; and others, real human children, have to behave and be used as sexual objects, ones that can be used without incurring the moral pollution of femininity.
“People came into our home feeling pity for us that we don’t have a son,” she recalled reasoning. “And the girls — we can’t send them outside. And if we changed Mehran to a boy we would get more space and freedom in society for her. And we can send her outside for shopping and to help the father.”
Some cultures need culturally genociding.
27 comments:
interesting pov
sue
I was with you up until that last sentence. You don't think there's any hope that Afghan culture may change?
This story reminds me of the 'sworn virgins' of Albania - traditionally, when a family had no male heir, a daughter could take on a male role and be accorded all the rights granted to men, as long as she agreed never to marry or have children. Now women's rights have improved in Albania, the practice is dying out, but there's still a few elderly sworn virgins left.
Of course I hope it will change, and out of all recognition.
After all, Nazism was eradicated. Mostly.
Cultural Genocide requires either of two things. The Carthaginian option, sewing the ground with salt etc. Of course any culture that foes such a thing is a pretty good candidate for eradication itself.
Or you do something much harder, a multi-generational educational activity, lasting a century or more. With luck, no-one actually gets hurt in this.
Some cultures are pathological. Angka for example. The Apache - otherwise known as "The Enemy" to all their neighbours. The Spartans. Any Racial Supremacists bent on enslaving and eating (as with the Aztecs) all others on the planet.
While one must think once, twice, three times before embarking on such a deliberate policy of cultural eradication, and first look at the beam in your own eye before the splinter in another's....
Yes. Sometimes you have to take responsibility and end things.
Slavery for example. The Final Solution. The Killing Fields. The Gulags. The cultures that produced those had to go.
An example even closer to home: the Scots Reavers. Romaticised after they'd been conveniently exterminated (see Carthaginian solution).
Read Kipling's "The Lament of the Border Cattle Thief"" if you want an insight into this psychology. That wealth creation is for wimps, Real Men steal from those weak and unfit to hold those riches.
O woe is me for the merry life
I led beyond the Bar,
And a treble woe for my winsome wife
That weeps at Shalimar.
They have taken away my long jezail,
My shield and sabre fine,
And heaved me into the Central jail
For lifting of the kine.
The steer may low within the byre,
The Jat may tend his grain,
But there'll be neither loot nor fire
Till I come back again.
And God have mercy on the Jat
When once my fetters fall,
And Heaven defend the farmer's hut
When I am loosed from thrall.
It's woe to bend the stubborn back
Above the grinching quern,
It's woe to hear the leg-bar clack
And jingle when I turn!
But for the sorrow and the shame,
The brand on me and mine,
I'll pay you back in leaping flame
And loss of the butchered kine.
For every cow I spared before
In charity set free,
If I may reach my hold once more
I'll reive an honest three.
For every time I raised the low
That scared the dusty plain,
By sword and cord, by torch and tow
I'll light the land with twain!
Ride hard, ride hard to Abazai,
Young Sahib with the yellow hair —
Lie close, lie close as khuttucks lie,
Fat herds below Bonair!
The one I'll shoot at twilight-tide,
At dawn I'll drive the other;
The black shall mourn for hoof and hide,
The white man for his brother.
'Tis war, red war, I'll give you then,
War till my sinews fail;
For the wrong you have done to a chief of men,
And a thief of the Zukka Kheyl.
And if I fall to your hand afresh
I give you leave for the sin,
That you cram my throat with the foul pig's flesh,
And swing me in the skin!
The creed of the Third Reich. And of the narcissistic psychopath.
For the wrong you have done to a chief of men,
And a thief of the Zukka Kheyl.
They're the victims you see, the natural aristocrats we should tug our forelocks to. How dare we dispute their divine right to steal from their inferiors!
Your second link is broken. (there's an extra "http://" at the beginning).
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. (there's an extra "http://" at the beginning).
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. (there's an extra "http://" at the beginning).
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. (there's an extra "http" at the beginning).
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. (there's an extra "http" at the beginning).
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. Trim off the first 7 characters.
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. Trim off the first 7 characters.
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. Trim off the first 7 characters.
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. Trim off the first 7 characters.
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
As for the case of Afghanistan in particular, yes, they have some really nasty cultural practices. Just as I'm certain I don't know a bunch of the good points of their cultures, I'm sure I don't know all the bad points either. The worst ones should be abolished/removed/corrected. On the other hand, as a citizen of the U.S.A., it's not like my own country's hands are sparkling clean, even now.
Your second link is broken. Trim off the first 7 characters.
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
In any case, raiding groups that survive for any period of time virtually always have more "respectable" support behind them - see many of the European (and American - the right of Congress to issue letters of marque in in the-U.S.A.'s Constitution)-backed privateer, the Scottish and British Reivers (frequently supported by governments on either side), and the "Apache" in the 1700s (apparently used by villages to implement indirect warfare).
It looks like Blogger's new automated and invisible Spam-Filter is a bit over-enthusiastic.
I'll try to publish posts that have been squashed. For now, please put no more than one URL per comment until they fix it. Thanks.
Your second link is broken. Trim off the first 7 characters.
While I think I understand your idea, I don't like the term "Cultural Genocide". I don't think it's accurate either - when the Holocaust stopped, and most of Germany's genocidal ways stopped being implemented, did their Opera (as an example) suddenly dramatically change? Such practices need to be modified/removed, not the entire culture extinguished (which, I'd argue is nearly impossible in any case without an extremely effective genocide).
As another example, did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" in the 1960s to reduce sexism, racism, and homophobia? Prior to the Third Reich, the U.S.A. (or at least several of its states) were one of the primary proponents of Eugenics. Did the U.S.A. need a "cultural genocide" to remove this practice (which ended de facto in the late 1970s and de jure in the early 1980s)? I'd argue that the answer is no.
Privateering (to take an example of a raiding culture you don't mention) was ended mostly by the Declaration of Paris. Was that a "cultural genocide" imposed on a number of cultures simultaneously?
I'm also skeptical of some of your samples. Note that the histories we read are typically written by their opponents. Here's an example quote about the Apache (sorry - the references I have are offline) "Of the hundreds of peoples that lived and flourished in native North America, few have been so consistently misrepresented as the Apacheans of Arizona and New Mexico. Glorified by novelists, sensationalized by historians, and distorted beyond credulity by commercial film makers, the popular image of 'the Apache' — a brutish, terrifying semihuman bent upon wanton death and destruction — is almost entirely a product of irresponsible caricature and exaggeration. Indeed, there can be little doubt that the Apache has been transformed from a native American into an American legend, the fanciful and fallacious creation of a non-Indian citizenry whose inability to recognize the massive treachery of ethnic and cultural stereotypes has been matched only by its willingness to sustain and inflate them."
My apologizes; I didn't realize I was hitting a filter - it looks like a generic error message from my side.
Please delete my last comment; it's just a shortened version of the prior one.
Oh and Zimbel - thanks. Both for spotting the broken link, and raising some excellent points.
I was basing my assessment of the Apache on descriptions by their neighbours, and they themselves: that theft from those not of "the people" was regarded as praiseworthy.
In that regard, it's a common template. Very Spartan. Ubermensch.
Privateering is a form of formal commerce warfare, now in disuse. Your point about land raiders, such as border reivers operating with outside support for political motives, is well made though.
One can look at Afghanistan, and the US support there for the Mujihadeen against the Soviets as an example not too different.
A better example of what I mean is the piracy off the coast of Somalia, and in the Straits of Malacca, today.
My own view is that the Old, Redneck and Racist South was culturally genocided. While most of the trappings remain, the society was fundamentally changed into something someone of, say, 1920 would have found unrecognisable.
That we still have some ways to go there shows just how long-term the solution has to be.
I thought Privateering was used both during formal warfare and between wars, but I'll cede the point - my naval history is far weaker than yours.
My knowledge of the Apache in the 1700s and early 1800s is very limited, but my understanding was that what we call the Apache are actually a number of different groups. For example, they spoke a number of different languages (7?). They mostly didn't raid on members of their group or from villages they were allied/trading partners with; other villages and groups were considered valid raid targets (and, less frequently, targets for war).
The Cold War is exactly what I was thinking about; Afghanistan was one of its most relevant battlefields.
I'm not particuarly convinced of your statement about the U.S.A.'s South - for starts, it is a common mis-apprehension that apartheid was a Southern (where South means the states that succeeded at or near the beginning of the Civil War) phenomenon. Slavery of Blacks was (by that point, and even - in a form- until the 1940s - see Slavery by Another Name) a Southern phenomenon; Evidence of ethnic cleansing could be found in most States of the country by the 1940s, and some persists today. The differences are that they can't be enforced other than locally, and outside of the South, it is/was mostly a local phenomenon (i.e. one city would be apartheid; the next wouldn't). To be specific:
1) virtually every suburb through the late 1960s excluded Blacks, Jews, and/or Asians
2) many towns outside of the "South" engaged in ethnic cleansing of the post-Civil War Black populations through the 1940s,
3) The federal government (via the Federal Housing Authority) from the late 1930s to late 1960s required that any housing project insurance required single-"race" only (where, for most if not all of that time, it considered Jews to be a "race").
4) Some towns and suburbs still appear to discriminate against non-whites something which, since 1917 (see Buchanan v. Warley) is unconstitutional.
See Sundown Towns for a reference.
Secondly, even if we restrict ourselves to the South, what evidence is there that the culture has been removed? Our prison system, somehow incarcerates Blacks roughly 6 times more frequently than Whites (see U.S. Prisons More Racist Than South Africa During Apartheid) this factor is more significant in the South than the North or West (see States and Black Incarceration in America). Despite there being large Black populations in most of the South, there have been no Black Senators from the South in over a century, and about 13 Black U.S. Congresspeople from the South in the past century. Heck, the movement of the South from mostly Democratic to mostly Republican was almost purely over the Democratic party mostly accepting Civil Rights for Blacks, and the Republicans (which were originally the anti-slavery party) mostly opposing it - in the 1960s and 1970s, with echos as recent as days ago. While yes, things are better for Blacks now than they were in the 1920s nearly everywhere in the U.S.A. (and they're far better for Jews in all but a small handful of places) I'm not certain that I'd consider it anything but a gradual, grudging change that at times moves in the wrong direction.
Now, if you compared it to the South of the 1850s, I'd agree... but I'm not certain that a change occurring over more than a century needs a name suggesting a deliberate extermination.
I thought Privateering was used both during formal warfare and between wars, but I'll cede the point - my naval history is far weaker than yours.
My knowledge of the Apache in the 1700s and early 1800s is very limited, but my understanding was that what we call the Apache are actually a number of different groups. For example, they spoke a number of different languages (7?). They mostly didn't raid on members of their group or from villages they were allied/trading partners with; other villages and groups were considered valid raid targets (and, less frequently, targets for war). One could also view that as a cold war between those villages with the Apache as intermediaries.
The Cold War is exactly what I was thinking about; Afghanistan was one of its most relevant battlefields.
I'm not particuarly convinced of your statement about the U.S.A.'s South - for starts, it is a common mis-apprehension that apartheid was a Southern (where South means the states that succeeded at or near the beginning of the Civil War) phenomenon. Slavery of Blacks was (by that point, and even - in a form- until the 1940s - see Slavery by Another Name) a Southern phenomenon; Evidence of ethnic cleansing could be found in most States of the country by the 1940s, and some persists today. The differences are that they can't be enforced other than locally, and outside of the South, it is/was mostly a local phenomenon (i.e. one city would be apartheid; the next wouldn't). To be specific:
1) virtually every suburb through the late 1960s excluded Blacks, Jews, and/or Asians (the three most commonly excluded groups)
2) many towns outside of the "South" engaged in ethnic cleansing of the post-Civil War Black populations through the 1940s,
3) The federal government (via the Federal Housing Authority) from the late 1930s to late 1960s required that any housing project insurance required single-"race" only (where, for most if not all of that time, it considered Jews to be a "race").
4) Some towns and suburbs still appear to discriminate against non-whites something which, since 1917 (see Buchanan v. Warley) is unconstitutional.
See Sundown Towns for a reference.
Secondly, even if we restrict ourselves to the South, what evidence is there that the culture has been removed? Our prison system, somehow incarcerates Blacks roughly 6 times more frequently than Whites (see U.S. Prisons More Racist Than South Africa During Apartheid) this factor is more significant in the South than the North or West (see States and Black Incarceration in America). Despite there being large Black populations in most of the South, there have been no Black Senators from the South in over a century, and about 13 Black U.S. Congresspeople from the South in the past century. Heck, the movement of the South from mostly Democratic to mostly Republican was almost purely over the Democratic party mostly accepting Civil Rights for Blacks, and the Republicans (which were originally the anti-slavery party) mostly opposing it - in the 1960s and 1970s, with echos as recent as days ago. While yes, things are better for Blacks now than they were in the 1920s nearly everywhere in the U.S.A. (and they're far better for Jews in all but a small handful of places) I'm not certain that I'd consider it anything but a gradual, grudging change that at times moves in the wrong direction.
Now, if you compared it to the South of the 1850s, I'd agree... but I'm not certain that a change occurring over more than a century needs a name suggesting a deliberate extermination.
I thought Privateering was used both during formal warfare and between wars, but I'll cede the point - my naval history is far weaker than yours.
My knowledge of the Apache in the 1700s and early 1800s is very limited, but my understanding was that what we call the Apache are actually a number of different groups. For example, they spoke a number of different languages (7?). They mostly didn't raid on members of their group or from villages they were allied/trading partners with; other villages and groups were considered valid raid targets (and, less frequently, targets for war). One could also view that as a cold war between those villages with the Apache as intermediaries.
The Cold War is exactly what I was thinking about; Afghanistan was one of its most relevant battlefields.
I'm not particuarly convinced of your statement about the U.S.A.'s South - for starts, it is a common mis-apprehension that apartheid was a Southern (where South means the states that succeeded at or near the beginning of the Civil War) phenomenon. Slavery of Blacks was (by that point, and even - in a form- until the 1940s - see Slavery by Another Name) a Southern phenomenon; Evidence of ethnic cleansing could be found in most States of the country by the 1940s, and some persists today. The differences are that they can't be enforced other than locally, and outside of the South, it is/was mostly a local phenomenon (i.e. one city would be apartheid; the next wouldn't). To be specific:
1) virtually every suburb through the late 1960s excluded Blacks, Jews, and/or Asians (the three most commonly excluded groups)
2) many towns outside of the "South" engaged in ethnic cleansing of the post-Civil War Black populations through the 1940s,
3) The federal government (via the Federal Housing Authority) from the late 1930s to late 1960s required that any housing project insurance required single-"race" only (where, for most if not all of that time, it considered Jews to be a "race").
4) Some towns and suburbs still appear to discriminate against non-whites something which, since 1917 (see Buchanan v. Warley) is unconstitutional.
See Sundown Towns for a reference.
Secondly, even if we restrict ourselves to the South, what evidence is there that the culture has been removed? Our prison system, somehow incarcerates Blacks roughly 6 times more frequently than Whites (see U.S. Prisons More Racist Than South Africa During Apartheid) this factor is more significant in the South than the North or West (see States and Black Incarceration in America). Despite there being large Black populations in most of the South, there have been no Black Senators from the South in over a century, and about 13 Black U.S. Congresspeople from the South in the past century. Heck, the movement of the South from mostly Democratic to mostly Republican was almost purely over the Democratic party mostly accepting Civil Rights for Blacks, and the Republicans (which were originally the anti-slavery party) mostly opposing it - in the 1960s and 1970s, with echos as recent as days ago. While yes, things are better for Blacks now than they were in the 1920s nearly everywhere in the U.S.A. (and they're far better for Jews in all but a small handful of places) I'm not certain that I'd consider it anything but a gradual, grudging change that at times moves in the wrong direction.
Now, if you compared it to the South of the 1850s, I'd agree... but I'm not certain that a change occurring over more than a century needs a name suggesting a deliberate extermination.
(3rd attempt - all hypertext removed)
I gather that most blogs don't use large comments(?) I've been having problems even without hypertext, so I'll try splitting...
I thought Privateering was used both during formal warfare and between wars, but I'll cede the point - my naval history is far weaker than yours.
My knowledge of the Apache in the 1700s and early 1800s is very limited, but my understanding was that what we call the Apache are actually a number of different groups. For example, they spoke a number of different languages (7?). They mostly didn't raid on members of their group or from villages they were allied/trading partners with; other villages and groups were considered valid raid targets (and, less frequently, targets for war). One could also view that as a cold war between those villages with the Apache as intermediaries.
The Cold War is exactly what I was thinking about; Afghanistan was one of its most relevant battlefields.
I'm not particuarly convinced of your statement about the U.S.A.'s South - for starts, it is a common mis-apprehension that apartheid was a Southern (where South means the states that succeeded at or near the beginning of the Civil War) phenomenon.
Slavery of Blacks was (by that point, and even - in a form- until the 1940s - see Slavery by Another Name) a Southern phenomenon; Evidence of ethnic cleansing could be found in most States of the country by the 1940s, and some persists today. The differences are that they can't be enforced other than locally, and outside of the South, it is/was mostly a local phenomenon (i.e. one city would be apartheid; the next wouldn't). To be specific:
1) virtually every suburb through the late 1960s excluded Blacks, Jews, and/or Asians (the three most commonly excluded groups)
2) many towns outside of the "South" engaged in ethnic cleansing of the post-Civil War Black populations through the 1940s,
3) The federal government (via the Federal Housing Authority) from the late 1930s to late 1960s required that any housing project insurance required single-"race" only (where, for most if not all of that time, it considered Jews to be a "race").
4) Some towns and suburbs still appear to discriminate against non-whites something which, since 1917 (see Buchanan v. Warley) is unconstitutional.
(it seems to be line length that's the trigger. Adding some carriage returns in inappropriate places passes the filter.
Secondly, even if we restrict ourselves to the South, what evidence is there that the culture has been removed?
Our prison system, somehow incarcerates Blacks roughly 6 times more frequently than Whites (see U.S. Prisons More Racist Than
South Africa During Apartheid) this factor is more significant in the South than the North or West (see States and Black Incarceration in America).
Despite there being large Black populations in most of the South, there have been no Black Senators from the South in over a century, and about 13 Black U.S. Congresspeople from the South in the past century.
Heck, the movement of the South from mostly Democratic to mostly Republican was almost purely over the Democratic party mostly accepting Civil Rights for Blacks, and the Republicans (which were originally the anti-slavery party) mostly opposing it - in the 1960s and 1970s, with echos as recent as days ago. While yes, things are better for Blacks now than they were in the 1920s nearly everywhere in the U.S.A.
(and they're far better for Jews in all but a small handful of places) I'm not certain that I'd consider it anything but a gradual, grudging change that at times moves in the wrong direction.
Now, if you compared it to the South of the 1850s, I'd agree... but I'm not certain that a change occurring over more than a century needs a name suggesting a deliberate extermination.
I think taking 100 years to change the Pashtun people is going to mean from now till then alot of 12 year old boys are going to have to screw and suck alot of older Pashtun penis.
Alot of young women are going to die, be tortured or raped just for being women.
And their society will be just as disgusting as it was next year as last.
Go in to the nation, execute all the men and women above the age of 16. Take the children as the children of the conquror. Sell off the lands of the Pashtun people to investment bankers and be done with this evil that is the Pashtun way.
Cultural relativizm be damned. There is no cultural excuse allowable to a people who treat half the population (women) lower than dogs and who find the rape of you men as young as 10 an acceptable practice.
I would argue that out right genocide is in order. Save their genes in the children and eliminate the keepers of the culture, the adults. Problem solved.
Cynthia Lee
@Cynthia Lee-
So to solve the problem of "people who treat half the population (women) lower than dogs", you'd "execute all the ...women above the age of 16"? I'm opposed to genocide in general, but I don't see how this could make any sort of sense.
De jure women's equality existed in much of the country during the late 1970s through at least the late 1980s.
During the Taliban's control of much of Afghanistan, I attended a Feminist conference where one of the topics was the rights of Afghan women; most of the speakers on the topic were Afghani or former Afghani.
I don't recall any of them asking for us to come in and kill all of them.
Post a Comment