India Report 7
INDIA REPORT # 7
"The lynx was dead. But the she-wolf was very weak and sick."- White Fang
"Rather than seek pity, sensing rather that weakness of any kind is something to be ashamed of, the animal crawls away to await the outcome: recovery or death"- Lassie Come Home
So there I was, sick as a dog, and for some reason I thought of quotes about sick dogs. I don't know why, though I blame the fever, and the hours spent lying there doing absolutely nothing. (By the way, I read those books when I was about 10, so the quotes are most likely wrong.) Anyway, I caught a pretty nasty flu bug the other day, had a bit of a fever, a vicious headache, and spent a day and a half in bed. Nothing like lying in bed, feeling like suck and having your mom and sister discuss malaria, and your presence or absence of it's symptoms. Rest assured however, that I do not have malaria, nor any other cool tropical disease, but simply the flu. By the time you read this I will be healthy again (I am already vastly improved.) Also, due to a lack of eating and sudden disgust at the thought of greasy, spicy curry, I will be thinner, with much less work, than weeks of running could do!
So, we head off tomorrow. Our itenerary for the last weekish is as follows:
We will travel to a nearby city with the Reverend and family, to see a project his daughter is running that gives milk and eggs to poor children
We will take the train to Mumbai. From there, we will train to Ranthambore National park. From there to Jaipur, which I know absolutely nothing about, except that it's both filthy and pretty- just like me! From there, probably to the Taj Mahal, and then to Delhi, where my mom and I fly back, while my sister travels with friends.
And finally, my"deep" thoughts for the day: this is the kind of stuff my mom and sister were discussing deep into the night, making me sleep deprived and thus subsceptible to ilness. (In their defence, my decision to do push-ups instead of trying to sleep did not help.)
# 1) To what extend it morality cultural? (I know the standard Christian answer is "it's not"). Most of us would agree that, say, dousing your wife with kerosene and lighting her on fire is wrong no matter where you do it. (This was how more than one of the kids here got orphaned.) However, in some cases it's much less clear cut. Although the Indian Christians disavow the caste system, we've noticed that they still seem to have a bit of a class-oriented attitude. Those with less money, less prestigous jobs, etc are expected to do simple but menial tasks for the wealther and lazier: "get me a glass", "here pass this Bible to that person" etc. Uncomfortable? Certainly. Immoral? I'm not sure... I like to think that, while I was a "holy crap it's a white person!" visitor in the villages, I set a bit of a good example for the Indian pastors by rolling up my sleeves and getting into the mud to help get a truck unstuck. Not that the Indian pastors don't do an enormous amount of good, or show a ton of love, for those less fortunate, mind you. They do, and they are much more to be admired than questioned.
And an enormous thanks go out everyone who helped to contribute financially to the mission, both readers and non-readers of this blog. (Yes, I realize that you need to read the blog to read the thank you, but the mission recieved generous gifts from people who have never heard of filth-man.) Most of the money was spent to buy rice, which is much cheaper now (it is just post-harvest) than later in the year. Thanks largely to your donations, the mission has been able to purchase over 600 sacks of rice. (We need 1000 for the year.) That's awesome.
6 comments:
Here is my philosophical thought of the day (as convoluted and confusing as it is filled with many tangents):
I would argue that Christianity has its own culture. I believe culture is an expression of a particular set of patterns and traits deemed to be excellent to a particular community. Therefore morality is cultural. Christians have a set of moral rules which are believed to be the standard by which they should live. It is part of the Christian culture/community.
Although Christians may want the moral rules to be universal (as they want all people to be Christian). It does not mean that it is (in fact it is not a universal moral code). Therefore only those that join the Christian faith practice the said rules.
It could be aruged that there are many different ways to be Christian. Which there are but they do not negate the obligatory rules and code of morality by which all Christians must live. Therefore to be Christian you must be part of prescribed community which share the same moral code.
Although most cultures share the same basic moral stances, they are not carbon copies of each other.
Morales develop so that societies can exist and be prosperous therefore things such as "you can't kill anyone you want whenever you want" only seems to make sense in protecting the continuation of that society. This only proves that smart communities that don't kill each other survived. Not that there is a universal moral code which is innate in all beings. If that were true then children would not need to be taught right from wrong.
What this has proved and its relevence I don't know other then to say: morality is cultural even if we wished it was universal.
Oh yes and the reason why cultures have things such as "lighting women on fire" and the caste system.
It is a lot easier to keep a group of people on the bottom where you do not have to compete with them for food and power. Then to give everyone the same rights and have to share what you have.
This although offensive to our moral compass and quite machiavellian, is a very efficient way to run a society.
(Now that we know I am brilliant, feel free to come to me for any of your mental reservations :)
Good comments.
I agree that Christianity has its own culture (or rather, these are many Christian cultures). Many of them, including some Western Christian cultures, can quite annoy me.
I realize that not everyone follows, or believes in, Christian morals. Even Chrstians disagree among what evactly God wants, and most Christains would say theiy follow their interpretation of God's law very imperfectly.
I realize that Human Beliefs in morality are cultural... but that was not quite what I was getting at, though I realize I didn't express myself so clearly...
I believe that there are things that are truly right and wrong, no matter what we may believe about them. (As a Christian, I believe God decides what is write and wrong.) This "true" morality makes an action moral or immoral (or neutral, I guess) regardless of what you or I, or anyone else, believes.
Many people would agree that torture and murder (like setting someone on fire) is wrong.. that is, regardless of whether it upsets someone's moral compass or not... our morality, then, should be an attempt to do what is "really" right and wrong, despite our imperfect ability to find the "true" morality...
Am I making sense? I am sure people will disagree even if they understand what I am saying.
As to Kathryn's second comment, I would rather research the caste system more before commenting on how it evolved, but I do find it interesting that the "highest" caste is also the religious leaders.
The "setting on fire" in this case was a husband killing his wife during (if I remember correctly) a drunken rage, after which he was arrested and incarcerated. In other words, simple murder. In this case at least, it is something both our culture and Indian culture find abhorrent, hence my using it as a "cross cultural" example. But again I wasn't very clear.
After re-reading my post, I stand by what I said but I apologize for the poor spelling.
I'm actually quite interested to hear what my friends Lucid Elusion and Jacob (as well as others, of course) have to say about this topic, even if it's not about Indian culutre specifically. Seem like it would be right up your alley.
Although I have also not researched the caste system (other then a brief anthropology class) I can only stand by what I said before, that it is a convenient way to control the power and wealth.
The fact that the religious leaders are at the top is not that surprising. Look back to the historical Catholic church. The whole reason why Martin Luther had his reformations was because of his objections to the heirarchical divisions and extortions of money from the poor(it to him went against Biblical teachings or for this argument Biblical culture). It is only the fact that religious leaders have the allusion of holding the supernatural power of God that they are able to get away with it. Even a modern day example of Bush saying that God appointed him to be president can be applied to this theory. He used his religion to unit the "religious right" into voting him (that can be debated) into power.
In regards to the pure rage that lead the man to burn his wife. In each culture there are "acceptable" forms of violence. In the West it is acceptable to shot a person that is beating you (self-defence, in Texas it is acceptable to shot a person that is tresspassing (i believe civil liberties). In more Eastern cultures, it may not be exactly legal (but no one is arrested) it is acceptable in some cultures to burn a woman because she was raped and is no longer pure (there are called honour killings). My point would be having a person set on fire is not as shocking to someone from that culture as conversely having someone shot dead would be as shocking to our culture. Therefore the motives of random murder are not acceptable to either culture but the means are an expression of that culture.
From a Christian point of view there is a universal moral code that everyone should follow (for example the ten commandments). But that does not actually mean there is a universal moral code that is clearly apparent to other cultures (again teaching children our cultural right from wrong).
I believe that the morals that all cultures universally share as I said before are only conducive to societies existing and that is why they are shared.
Is God "sad" that we do not all follow what he taught? Probably. Does he "wish" all humans used his moral code? I am assuming. But that does not mean that there is an innate universal moral code we are born with.
The classic nurture vs. nature. We know it can't be all nature since there are differences between cultures. So then is it all nurture? From what I have been arguing I would say it is mostly. Research (twin studies etc..) has proven that we are born with our personality but we learn our values and morals from our parents. For example paternal (identical) twins can be seperated at birth raised in two different households. They will have the exact same disposition, and yet have learned two completely different sets of morals and values.
So if your argument is that there are some things that are truly right and wrong. From your perspective as a Christian there is. Is it universally shared, maybe, but you have to look at why it would be shared. A vegetarian may truly believe it is wrong to kill an animal. But that is not a universally shared phenomena. It has only evolved since our society has become so prosperous that animal eating is not necessary to survive.
Hopefully that addressed part of your issue.
Ahh, finally, my promised reply, long after anyone will read it (trying to kill time before my plane leaves... um, I mean, eager to debate morality.)
Point by point: yes, the caste system is a convenient way to control wealth, and as well as a good "excuse" not to help the poor. As an interesting side note, the government of India now practices "affirmative action" for the lower castes.
I didn't know Bush said God appointed him to be president, though that wouldn't suprise me. He does claim God's support for many of his actions. (Interesting question: what would a president really chosen by God look like?) And your catholic example is well taken. agree. The Pharisees in the Bible, who pissed Jesus off like no other, also benefited themselves from their "religious leader" status.
You are right about "honor killings", they do happen here... though in this case the murderer was arrested.
The vegetarianism thing is interesting, because I'm not sure it can be traced back to Darwinistic evolution. In India, eating meat IS necessary to survive sometimes and people stil won't do it because of their religion. Cows wander the streets freely, while people starve all around. The obvious evolutonary adaption (what any other omnivore would do) is to eat the cow... however, because of religious beliefs (cows are holy to Hindus and may not be eaten) people don't. Likewise, rats are venerated, and a lot of crops are destroyed that could otherwise feed thousands (maybe milloons) of people because people are not "allowed" to kll the rats.
I know you're trying to say more in your last paragraph, but I honestly dont' understand it.
Post a Comment