In Monday's class, J. L. and A.V.M.(Initialed for sake of animosity in case of future opinionated employers hunting for issues) brought up the argument that just like for Montezuma, it can be argued that the Spaniards are victims of their culture. Just as J. L. mentioned themselves, this perspective is arguable solely depending on one's perspective. As I was leaning back in my gray mesh chair, I tried to figure out why that argument sounded so familiar. It was then that I realized this is the same strain of argument I use on my grandparents and other people of older age all the time. How many times have you heard someone tell you that so and so are too old to change their views, so why bother; let them be in peace? This is the foundational argument I use to be able to feel comfortable in maintaining a relationship with my own highly conservative grandparents.
*Disclaimer: I truly love my grandparents. I am thankful to have them in my life. They have shaped me in innumerable ways, and I will forever treasure them*
Now certain differences in opinion are perfectly reasonable. To continue with my example, I love discussions with my grandparents concerning differing opinions in politics, and I can even go so far as saying, in their essence if not the means, I agree with many of their opinions. Yet, then there are their opinions on topics including climate change, the LGBT community, and issues over immigration which I find completely offensive. If it were my peers expressing those opinions, I would be arguing with them and confidently advocating for myself. Why don't I do the same in the presence of my grandparents? Because I convince myself that I shouldn't take their opinions personally since they are just results of their age and time, and since they are just 'victims' to their 'culture' they will not change, so the only thing that will come from me arguing is ruining relationships for my family. Obviously the situation is slightly for complicated than this, but the situation brings about certain questions that I think are important to wrestle with including:
1) Is it moral to grant people excuses based on their culture/past?
2) Is there really any benefit in understanding the person's situation/culture/past behind their opinions?
3) Is it appropriate to strong arm people to "modern" day standards despite their cultural norms?
By answering these questions, I find it easier to wrestle with the class questions if we can categorize the Spaniards or Montezuma as mere victims to their circumstance.
In response to your question "Is it moral to grant people excuses based on their culture/past?", I would like to say yes and no. From the "yes" perspective, I believe they deserve a pass when there is pure ignorance involved. If someone has not been introduced to new ideologies and the thought processes behind them, then one cannot be angry at them for their ignorance. For example, someone who rejects the idea of another individual being gay because it is not a reality they have yet been exposed to. However, from the perspective of no, blatant hate and destruction cannot be justly defended. Therefore, even if the beliefs or prejudices are rooted in culture, it cannot justify the maltreatment of another group of people for the sake of rejection against something that is not a norm in their culture or past. Needless to say, in certain circumstances, it is not moral to grant people excuses based on their culture/past.
ReplyDeleteXandra, I really resonate with and relate to your blog post. Struggling when to understand where to draw the line and not cause conflict, versus standing up for your own personal morals can be a tough choice, and I applaud your acknowledgment of these feelings. But to answer your question ( or answer Ish), I would say this: I think offering excuses for the victims and offering excusers for the antagonizers are two very different things. - A
ReplyDelete