Beginning with this question of "What do I consider myself"? helps frame the larger issues at hand. How we define ourselves tells us how we view the world, helps us define our relationships with others, and aids us in our understanding of the "goods" and "bads" of our society, a necessary introduction to colonialism.
The hardest part about this lesson was the candy bowl. If I have a lot medicine (aka candy) that will help out fellow human beings, do I share it with them for the benefit of all? Or do I keep it to better my own chances? I think that within reason, it's good to help others. If you're down to a limited amount, I don't see anything wrong with protecting your own assuming all people are the same in terms of being beneficial to the world. Even putting that aside, I wouldn't argue with anyone who protects their own with extremely limited resources.
Do we force it on people when they refuse to take it, and we know it can help them? NO. The only time I can see this being ok is if their health in some way drastically affects the immediate health of those trying to help.
Missionaries of all universalizing religions have had the opposite mindset believing that they know what is best for the world. They seek to sway populations with their bias and convert the world to their way of thinking. I very much disagree with these ideals. I don't blame them for wanting to share their beliefs, but after knowing many people myself who tie service and religion to converting others, it is impossible for me to appreciate their work when it's not really sharing. Sharing implies an exchange. There is no exchange happening many times. The missionaries are giving their ideas and taking none concerning spiritual beliefs. Sure, they might learn a tribal dance, eat the food, or know a family by name, but this isn't the same as trying to understand why the natives think the way they do. I would believe in the work of missionaries more if they were willing to accept that they may be wrong.
All of this is in reference to proactive efforts, meaning that a person/entity goes out of their way to change or provide something to another. One example discussed was the requirement of FSU to have health insurance. Isn't this forcing something that one believes is beneficial upon another? I would say that it's not, because it's completely up to the state system and private schools what requirements and fees they would like to have in exchange for the education one receives there. You don't have to go to school, that state, or even get an education. It is your choice, so I think that you have to play by their rules.
Ultimately, I feel that a lot of the controversy in colonialism comes from its contradictory nature of both trying to help others and forcing something upon people who don't want to receive it. There can be many positives to exchange of ideas, but only if we are willing to receive the other half of the exchange. The largest ethnic religion in the world (meaning they don't seek to convert others) is Hinduism. So much history, life lessons, and peaceful solutions to the world's problems are stored within its values and structure. If we are to only open our minds to hear these thoughts, it would make both the sending and receiving belief systems more solid in foundation and receptive to growth.
No comments:
Post a Comment