With some friends tonight, we were briefly discussing some cultural identity issues, where for example the Romani people in Finland have a pretty bad reputation for being thieves and a fair amount of violence. However, this isn't a genetic trait for them, it is through their habits, their cultural behaviours, and their socialisation. I have some friends with Romani background who weren't raised in the culture, and they are good people. Yet, I have had enough dealings with people who were raised in the culture, to know to be very wary of doing any type of trade with them. I find that sad.
But at the same time, a reputation is generally earned through experience, and while there can be a lot of bigotry involved, if the Romani people objectively reflected on their behaviours, they would quickly see why the generalised reputation exists. But people aren't very good at objective self-reflection.
As an example of this, I brought up something I read the other day where Paris Hilton believes that she is self-made. And even if we give her some leeway in the later years, in what world can she possibly consider herself self-made when the thing that made her famous, was only famous because of the family she comes from. Plenty of women have made sextapes and not become famous. If she wasn't a Hilton heir, would anyone have cared? Kim Kardashian goes into that same category, for she is a Kardashian - and she was Paris Hilton's personal assistant.
Accidental sextape....
But this isn't about the Romani people or rich girls making sextapes, it is just how depending on our surroundings, we become blind to certain aspects of life. Most people would say plenty of things like "I would never be a terrorist" without considering if that is true if they had been raised in a radicalised family and social surrounding. Similarly, people will claim all kinds of various virtues without recognising that the only reason that they can hold those kinds of opinions, is because of their environment.
And this goes for negative traits too.
Everyone loves a rags to riches story, but the fact is that most people born into rags, will die in rags. Very, very few will make it into the riches categories. Similarly, if a person is born into a family that sits in front of the TV eating microwave dinners and junk food, they are unlikely to become a renowned athlete with peak physical fitness.
Our surroundings shape us, and provide us opportunity to learn, including things we might not want to learn. And while this happens to us as individuals, we don't seem to do a very good job of recognising that other people are shaped by their various backgrounds too, from family, culture, friends and whatever else. Yet, while we are blind to ourselves, we are very aware of all the differences in others. Especially the ones that we don't like.
If you want to be respected by others, act in a way that they respect.
It is funny today, because people say they don't care what others think of them, but expect to be accepted by the same people. It is nonsensical. Similarly, they demand respect, even if they act in ways that are not worthy of respect by those they are making demands from. If you want respect from me, it is pretty easy. Treat people well and put in some effort to make the world a better place. If you want to lose my respect. Be a dick. It doesn't matter what the reason is,
Acting like a dick, makes you a dick.
We are all dicks sometimes, where for whatever reason we are unable to control ourselves, we might be angry or getting frustrated. But, for more and more people these days, dickish behaviour s the baseline, yet the same people still expect to be treated as if they are not dicks. And what I find is that a lot of cultural behaviours that people expect to be accepted because it is "culture" is actually pretty dickish behaviour - Like having dress codes, or treating some people or groups as inferior, or harming children, or telling people who they are allowed to love.
Rules by dicks, for dicks.
And there are plenty more.
Let's say there was one overarching rule, a super rule, and that is
to maximise human wellbeing.
If all the subrules have to serve the core tenet, how many of those rules should limit one person so that another person doesn't feel something negative? If it is culturally acceptable to cover women up from head to toe so as not to tempt men, is that a rule that serves the maximisation of human wellbeing? Or should the rule be that all people have to control their emotions and behaviours so as not to encroach on the generally accepted freedoms of others.
Men and women should be treated equally, but not the same.
If I go into the doctor with a problem, I don't want them to waste time and resources looking for a womb I do not have. And I am pretty sure my wife doesn't want her gynaecologist spending time looking for testicles. Being treated equally, is doing what is right for the individual. But the problem comes because a lot of what we consider "fair treatment" is actually cultural opinion that is by the very nature of it, unfair. Culture is exclusionary. And it is even more so when people go on about cultural appropriation bullshit, like how someone can or can't wear their hair, or what music they can or can't listen to. Because if cultural appropriation is a problem, then how are all the women born into cultures that oppress women, able to change their outcomes? They are oppressed by culture, and they are not allowed to "appropriate" any other culture? And those that oppress them must stick to their cultural programming too - fight for it even, right?
That is fucking inappropriate.
But you see? If we don't accept that culture can change, because people can and will change, then we are going to keep promoting the maintenance and even strengthening of all the negatives of culture too. But, if we accept that people change and therefore culture changes, we are able to take on the best parts of what we like from any culture, and promote the best. The kinds of customs and behaviours that are worthy of promotion. The ones that empower people to be their best, and to maximise their wellbeing.
I am yet to come across a healthy culture.
That sounds like a bold statement, but it is not, as it should be pretty bloody obvious to everyone with half a brain - which is about all I have. There is no healthy culture in the way people talk about culture, because a culture is a group of collective behaviours that were designed for a specific set of conditions over time. And over time, those conditions change, so the culture changes. Yet, what people seem to hold onto in culture are things that have often become irrelevant, just so that they can identify themselves as something different from the rest of the group. This means that the cultural trait is no longer practical, but ideological, and divorced from the reality of the current conditions.
Living as if the conditions of the past, are the same as the present.
You might say you love your culture, but I posit that if you were actually to look at it objectively, you would find a whole lot of things you would happily let go of and a whole lot of things that were not part of the culture originally. And what that means is, the thing you consider "your culture" is not actually what you act it is. It is something that is always changing and should always change because the conditions we live in change. We are in a global world, influenced by thousands of people we have never met, millions of advertisements, billions of interactions daily - but we think we shouldn't change?
Does your culture have a bad reputation?
I think all cultures should have a bad reputation, if the behaviours are enacted blindly. Instead, we should be looking to build the conditions that support the behaviours that assist us in being our best, which means improving our current conditions. This means, a culture of constant improvement, where the conditions are improving, as are our cultural habits.
Don't be the best of a culture.
Always strive to be better.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
