Randy McDonald ([info]rfmcdpei) wrote,
@ 2004-02-02 11:39:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood: angry

Cultural Evolution
From the New York Times:

Doctor in Italy Tries to Ease Pain of an African Tradition
By FRANK BRUNI

Published: February 1, 2004

LORENCE, Italy, Jan. 26 — Week after week, scarred women came to Dr. Omar Abdulcadir's gynecology clinic here for help, and while the ways in which they suffered differed, the reason was always the same.

They were immigrants to Italy who had been subjected back in Africa to a brutal girlhood ritual, common throughout much of the continent, in which part or all of their external genitalia had been sliced off.

Dr. Abdulcadir treated their infections or inflammation and then, earlier this month, took an unusual step — intended, he said, to protect their daughters from the same fate. He publicly proposed that the hospital where he works let him perform a much less severe version of — or alternative to — female genital cutting.

His goal, he said, was to ease the physical toll of a tradition that was not going away.

"My proposal isn't ideal," he said. "But is there a better answer for how to save the children?"

Read more.

Inasmuch as saving the children goes, punishing their parents if they even think of sexually mutilating their offspring is an excellent first step.

You know, there are some cultural elements which deserve to die. There are also some which deserve to be killed. FGM falls into the second category.


(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]serod
2004-02-02 09:34 am UTC (link)
There's an old story set during the British administration of India. A local administrator pays a visit to a traditional Hindu funeral, and sees the mourners getting ready to cremate the man's widow alive according to the tradition of "suttee." The administrator, shocked, asks them why they are doing that. One of the mourners tells him, "In our country, we have an honourable tradition to sacrifice widows on their dead husbands' pyres, so please do not interfere." The administrator answers back, "Well, in my country, we also have an honourable tradition, which is to hang rotters who burn innocent women alive. So you carry out your tradition, and then I'll build a gallows and carry out mine."

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]pauldrye
2004-02-02 11:06 am UTC (link)
Sir Charles Napier. He was also the wit who supposedly telegrammed "Peccavi" back to Britain after conquering the Sind (though that turns out to have been a Punch cartoon of him published at the time, not something he actually said).

Interesting guy. Fought in the Peninsular War, in the War of 1812, in the 100 Days, nearly decided to become commander of the Greek army during their successful revolution against the Ottomans, nearly led one of the early colonial efforts into Australia, pall-bearer for thr Duke of Wellington.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re:
[info]serod
2004-02-02 02:49 pm UTC (link)
Interesting, I didn't know the administrator in question was real.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re:
(Anonymous)
2004-02-02 08:42 pm UTC (link)
Sir Charles Napier. He was also the wit who supposedly telegrammed "Peccavi" back to Britain after conquering the Sind

I think that in today's world, where we no longer are privileged to receive Classical educations, we need to provide an explanation. It's a Latin/English pun. Peccavi is the Latin for "I have sinned". Well, indeed, he had Sind.

It's typical English schoolboy humor, coming from the same tradition as the claim that what Julius Caesar really said was "weenie, weedy, weakie" rather than "veni, vidi, vici" or "I came, I saw, I conquered".

In any case, those of us with a weakness for puns think that it's quite funny.

Alexander

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re:
[info]rfmcdpei
2004-02-02 11:56 am UTC (link)
Sometimes, moral imperialism is entirely justified. Sometimes, elements of traditional and/or colonized cultures do deserve to be killed off. Nice wit, that guy, whether authentic or manufactured.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re:
[info]ladyfelicity
2004-02-02 12:03 pm UTC (link)
Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re:
(Anonymous)
2004-02-02 04:47 pm UTC (link)
From Conrad Barwa:

Dunno whether to get too excited about this; I mean the EIC policy before Betinck banned outright in 1829 was to allow it as long as it was deemed to be ‘voluntary’ as willing suicide seemed permissible but coerced homicide not. Some of the most disturbing historical evidence used by researchers on the topic is the written reports of EIC officials who had to attend these ceremonies to make sure that they were done ‘properly’ and the widow was not being forced into committing sati in the first place. In anycase, there was a large upcry about the practise of sati in the early part of the 19th century as both pro and anti positions were taken and reading the Bengali periodicals of the time shows the sharp divisions that were created. Ram Mohan Roy, the leading figure behind many key Hindu social reforms, led a strong anti-sati lobby to pressurise the EIC to ban the practise. Rather unfortunately the eventual ban tended to interpret the whole thing as an exclusively religious affair, rather than a cultural and social one, and relied on rather arcane scriptural sanctions as to its validity – or lack of. The shastric legal code adopted, which formed the basis of the ban was very much an orthodox and Brahminnical one and was used to codify the bulk of social and gender legislation; the resulting impact of which led to the institutionalisation of highly conservative and discriminatory legal stances towards women in general which a later generation of reformers had to campaign vigorously for, rehabilitating young widows in particular from a situation of de facto bondage; so images of the Great White Liberator, are I feel perhaps a little overdone. The other problem with the ban was that it relied very much on the District authorities being alerted to the practise by local agrarian elite classes of zamindaris and talukdars - the great bulk of whom were precisely the same constituencies that most favoured the practise and who were hardly what one could call progressive in such matters. The reach of the colonial state, in anycase was more limited and interest in revenue collection; and so outside the metropolitan and well-connected areas not very thorough and isolated DMs had other problems on their minds. Like earlier rulers to also banned the practise – most recently the Mughals, translating this into effective policy proved more problematic. Ironically, the post-colonial state being more modernised and actually interested in rural economic development has a much more extensive and intensive reach; making it come face-to-face with the entrenched social practises still prevalent in rural areas but which hitherto had passed unnoticed, sati being one of the more unpleasant (thought relatively smaller) ones; putting into context earlier notions of great progress under colonial modernity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re:
[info]pauldrye
2004-02-02 06:34 pm UTC (link)
Napier was rather interesting, though, in that for all he was a hard-nosed career soldier, he had a strong moral compass. One of those guys who you understand where he's coming from even if you don't necessarily agree with him, much more so than your average white, male Englishman of the time. For example, he was as sympathetic as anyone in power was to Chartism, but he was also very much "You're not going to do this with violence, though."

As far as the EIC was concerned, he was actually at the absolute forefront of getting them out of power and a proper (colonial) government into India. As you might suspect from the stories attached to him, he had a razor-sharp tongue and pen, and he used them to good effect against the Company.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re:
(Anonymous)
2004-02-04 10:38 am UTC (link)
From Conrad:

Perhaps, I don't remember much about Napier, I always had the impression about him being some sort of gambling gentleman of leisure; and as for Chartism, I suppose it depends on what you mean by it since it had a radical wing and a more moderate one as well. I am unimpressed by establihsed elite disavowal of violence to accomplish change in this case - not becuase it was wrong but becuase it invariably bolstered the status quo. This very lack of any structural change and reformism is one of the main reasons why Britian remained a class society for such a longtime. Probably still would be even more of one than it currently is, if it hadn't been for the social upheavals of the two World Wars.

he was actually at the absolute forefront of getting them out of power and a proper (colonial) government into India.

What exactly would a "proper Colonial govt" look like? The one that was put in place managed to completely bungle famine releif by a mis-application of Smithian principles of the flow of goods resulting in several million deaths until they learnt their lessons by the 1880s. In many ways the imprint of colonial govt has distorted many aspects of Indian society and economy; it had some important positive effects, but I don't think one needs to get too excited about these as given the state of Indian society at the time; it is difficult to argue that some form of modernisation would not have happened otherwise. Most economic historians today of the period following on from Chris Bayly and the other 'Cambridge School' adherents have transformed the way the sub-continental economy was working at the time and put to rest older illusions of a supposedly moribund and hidebound society. The really constructive things that the British gave to India, like democracy were very much by-products and things which were passed on involuntarily rather than by design.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(9 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…