To what extent are you willing to allow another culture to freely operate even though it may be very much against what you think is right? Let me give you an example that I used to give my anthropology students.

Traditionally, the Polar Inuit ("Eskimos") practiced female infanticide (only with newborns) and senilicide (an elder who outgrew his/her usefulness would voluntarily "take a walk") if survival seemed threatened. Missionaries attempted to get them to stop it, but were not very successful. However, the governments of Canada and the U.S. did finally put a stop to it.

Were they right in doing so?

I'll catch you folks sometime early next week to read your responses. Have a great weekend.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I think that infanticide, child genital mutilation (male and female), are morally wrong no matter what their primitive religions allows. The infant and child does not have informed adult concent to having his/her genitals mutilated. It is government's duty to protect its innocent children from religious and/or sexual abuse. It is also government's duty to protect the weaker from abuse by bullies, women from abusive spouses, and all citizens protected from laws purely based on religious or superstitious grounds.

Human rights outweighs culture. No human culture is sacred, and all cultures need to be restricted if they cause harm or violence. Our European and American cultures are already suffering persecution based on religious taboos and other repressive rubbish.

Amergin

__________________
Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you. There is no evidence of God so belief is optional.

I think we should employ more of the standards of the United Nations and think more globally these days..

Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Yes.. subcultures and native cultures should be allowed and protected but not at the expense of the welfare of children by the standards adopted by say the UN in my opinion.

-Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

The "taking the walk" thing was not something which people would do if there were options.
The lives of the younger people would have to be severely threatened with starvation before an elder would opt for this course.
Such is a noble sacrifice such as is written in the Christian bible (NT) which says something like "there is no greater love than to lay down your life for your brother".
They would do this so that the family/tribe would live.
White culture has little understanding of the native ways and like to impose their own.
The christian cultural missionaries made a real big deal about imposing their mythological god upon people whom they regarded as primitive and pagan and the irony is that they thought they were saving the people from their mythologies while they were just replacing one myth with another.

Fine comments, Art

Amergin

__________________
Militant Agnostic: I don't know, and neither do you. There is no evidence of God so belief is optional.

if it were harming someone, I would step in

To the extent that they are coercing people based on supposed "tradition" and cultural values to harm themselves or others.


Life in the North is probably very difficult, so an elderly member of the family would have burdened heavily other members. If he couldn't necessarily provide for himself, I don't see anything wrong with him "taking a walk" so to speak.

Why would they practice female infanticide?

Before dealing with the above question, let me just briefly say that I find the various posts to be interesting but, personally, I have had difficulty answering my own question. But I'll start with the question above, and then show why I have so much difficulty with this issue.

The single greatest danger the traditional Polar Inuit were faced with was starvation since they were totally reliant on meat for the winter months whereas they lived on the Polar icecap. The issue of starvation not only related to the ability to kill game, but also to the size of the society itself. In order to keep the population down, they occasionally resorted to female infanticide (they're the ones having children) with newborns and senilicide if it became apparent that the size of the society was becoming too large.

By stopping both practices, the American and Canadian governments did indeed protect those lives, but the counter-reaction was that the societies grew to the point whereas they could no longer feed themselves and, in so doing, they increasingly became wards of the state. And with that happening, the welfare roles increased dramatically, poverty became a major problem, drug and alcohol abuse sharply rose (whereas it is still a major problem), and their culture was all but destroyed.

As an anthropologist, it is our job to study such groups but not to change them. However, the government's role is different since it has to make decisions as to what is and is not to be allowed. So, then the question becomes should the larger society force it's beliefs and morals on all peoples? Female infanticide and senilicide helped solve a problem, and my drift tends to be that I'm very reluctant to advocating forcing a sub-culture to completely adopt the ways of the main culture, unless there's no choice. On the other hand, all groups historically have to adopt to new situations, including being conquered by other societies.

So, I think you can see why I have had difficulty coming up with a simple solution. However, I will say that, with contraception now being readily available, I do drift in the direction that the practice of female infanticide should not be allowed. However, if an elder wishes to "take a walk", who am I to say he/she can't?

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Inasomuch as a practice only affects the person using it, I see no reason to intervene.

But the moment the practice harms another person, it's time for intervention.