Amara Rojo
December 9th, 2015
International Relations 170
In
the Todorov reading, the passage highlights the imposition of Western culture
on the unknown. Although this is in the context of 400 years ago and through
the lens of Christopher Columbus, this is still prevalent today with how the
modern “Westernized world” views what many would call archaic cultures.
With
the declaration of the “war on terror” after September 11th, the
world changed dramatically with how it viewed non-western cultures and
religions, specifically Islam. The average American usually did not have any
contact with Islam, their first association being that of a radicalized group
that committed terror on their own. Thus, the violent stereotype emerged giving
what everyone needed at that moment: a scapegoat. Phenotypical differences were
drawn and every mannerism imaginable was given an immense distinction. This is
no different to what Columbus did centuries ago, commenting on appearances and mannerism
comparing them to Western ideals. Once again, the “othering” occurred. This is understandable
though. In times of tragedy and the encountering of the unknown—with September
11th, this happened simultaneously—there is a tendency to want to separate
yourself from the enemy or unknown as much as possible.
With ethnocentrism
running high, many Americans (and Westerners in general) cannot help but impose
the beliefs that democracy is the best form of government to run a country and
that religion is less important in daily life than it was in years past.
Westerners are biased. We cannot be objective in our morals, nor can we
possibly understand that just because we perceive things to be a certain way
that it may not always work for other cultures. Columbus could not understand
the traditions and lifestyle of the natives he encountered because he simply
was too partial to his European standards. I would say that we aren’t quite as
terrible as the first explorers were when trying to understand the unknown; today
we can understand that there are some people who do not think what the West
stands for is the best—not that many Westerners would accept that. We are
solely coming to the consensus as a Western culture that maybe democracy is not
what is best for every nation. Not that we have had much of a choice in the
matter. With war after war, failed democracies conceived by Western states, and
several terrorist attacks, there can only be one conclusion from this: by
forcing democracy and Western morals on other countries, this not only belittles
our views on other countries, but also creates animosity and backlash to the
nation states in power.
Amara-
ReplyDeleteI liked how you took the reading and used it to explain the problems of today. I agree with you that not all countries are mean't to be a democracy. It is very apparent that the Western culture is not for every state. I think that if the nation as a whole was more willing to accept this that there would be the less hatred towards the "other". I think Western countries have trouble thinking that maybe they are not the best. The key is to respect other nations' decision to not follow in the footsteps of your own nation.
Hi Amara!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post. I like how you were able to compare Todorov’s reading about a culture from 400 years ago, and compare it to today’s, “Westernized World.” I also thought your argument about wanting to separate oneself from the enemy was very compelling. Unfortunately, in the United States after the attacks on 9/11, many people created terrible stereotypes about Islam, thus forming the “Other” you mentioned.
Good job!