March 04, 2012

In the name of "what we think you should be like"

When, exactly, do we help our fellow man .vs. hurting them differently?

I am re-reading a wonderful book, Born To Run, In looking up some of the runners written about, I came across an interview where someone takes issue with the authors romanticizing the living conditions of the Tarahumara Indians of the Copper canyon, when they live in "abject poverty".

In reading the book I did not get the same impression.  Which got me thinking about the early missionaries, bringing technology and religion to various places on earth.  This goes back to that well meaning gesture or the road paved with good intentions.

Is it right to look at a society and proclaim the inadequate based upon our own?  This idea bring up images of atrocities.  The Hey!  you should be like us! Mentality permeates our nobler then thou culture.

Gene Roddenberry pondered the corruption of one society upon another.  His solution was observation and gleaning understandings well before imperialistic actions.

There are peoples ways of life that are good and bad and nigh impossible to judge from an outsiders standpoint.  There could be delicate balances trampled underfoot while striving to "make things better" for those who are "less lucky"...  Which is really a crock of crap.

Then again look at our current information age and the struggles that abound.  Wouldn't it be great of some extraterrestrials came from elsewhere and pointed out how we would be much better off enslaved?

Yeah... me neither...

1 comment:

flyingvan said...

There are, of course, different standards. One standard is, "What creates the best environment where people can do whatever they choose and not be held accountable for their actions?" Slightly better is, "What causes the most happiness?" A better question is, "What creates an environment for anybody that tries hard and takes risks has the potential to improve their position?" To me, the top tier question is, "What does the most to increase human dignity?"