It's January second, two thousand-twelve, two days after this blog was technically due... oops. Don't feel bad Mrs. Burnett, you're not the only teacher whose work I neglected to start until today. :)
While reading and responding to an article on the concept of cultural relativism at first seemed a dull and daunting task (as I prefer to choose and write about the topics I please rather than ones that are assigned to me), I soon found myself nerdily absorbed in what James Rachels had to say. Coincidentally, I had recently glanced through a book on the concept of moral relativism (written by someone who was vehemently opposed to it), so I was interested in learning the difference between the two and found it interesting how the two are connected... but I'll save that discussion for another time.
A lot of the points presented in "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" I found to be almost common sensical- for example, "Different cultures have different moral codes." Well, duh. As if reading about how Okonkwo's village slaughtered innocent boys in retribution for the wrongs done to them by another village wasn't proof enough of that fact.
However, several of Rachels' points I found to be very thought-provoking and enlightening, especially the ones that disspelled the notion that cultural relativism is a completely reasonable way of thinking and should be adopted by all in the pursuit of unity among humans. I myself feel that, while some aspects of cultural relativism are truthful and would be beneficial if implemented in our society, there are others which would be disastrous if done so, and I'm glad that James Rachels feels the same way.
For example, one argument Rachels pits against making culture relativism the "law of the land" (which is a paradox if you really think about it) is that it would forbid us from condemning the practices of other societies on the basis of morals. In other words, we could not say that Hitler's abominable attempt to wipe out the Jewish population in Germany known as the Holocaust was wrong simply because we as Americans, Christians, "good people", etc. believe it to be so. Such an attitude would undoubtedly result in throwing the world into complete and utter chaos and turmoil. ("Well, if there's no clear definition of right or wrong, then who's to say America shouldn't nuke the heck out of China for no good reason? It'll certainly take a big chunk out of our national debt!") My point has been made.
In relation to Things Fall Apart: Okonkwo was so blinded by the belief that his way of life was the only way of life that he was willing to die rather than succumb to the changes taking place in his society. The tragic end of his life resulted from the fear of the unknown. While I can't say I blame him for being opposed to having his village taken over and transformed by outsiders, I also think that had he should have at the very least strived to learn more about the white man's ideas before rejecting them completely. On the other hand, I think that the men who invaded Okonkwo's society should have taken the time to befriend the Igbo people and learn more about their culture before disregarding it as primitive and backward and replacing it with what they believed to be their own superior culture.
Really, can't we all just get along?
-Kati Davis
