Test how PC you are (Mongol Races)

During my Saturday morning coffee, jazz and newspaper session I came across this article. I found myself fascinated by the history but also found a conflict within my own opinion. I can't really make my mind up on this little political / moral dilemma. See what you think. In fact, let's poll it, why not.

Here's the article, in today's Times. The questions are below (sorry for messing up the scan cropping).





So these are the options:

1 ~ On one hand you have the 800 year old cultural tradition of these Mongol horse races. Clearly significant to Mongol cultural identity and hasn't seen the need for these helmets at all. In fact one man is quoted as saying a sunhat would be more appropriate. This camp's position will be extended and attacked for condoning child labour, geisha culture, female circumcision and the like. [We'll call this the 'Mongol sunhat' camp]

2 ~ On the other you have an argument for the health and saftey of these child jockeys who range between 5 - 12 years old, after which they become too heavy. This proposes to alter the way this ancient tradition is approached, albeit in a minor way. This camp stands open to attack for masking a wider power dynamic with seemingly benevolent intentions. Read on. [We'll call this the 'UNICEF helmet' camp]

Now please be aware that we have to dramatise this a bit. I'm aware of that. But it's necessary to reveal the wider power dynamic at play.

See the extension of this second camp's logic has:

a) Caused animals to be driven out of the circus ~ animal rights triumphed over a centuries long tradition and many people and animals lost their jobs.

b) Caused animal fat to be used to grease bullets ~ This was an example of one group imposing what they saw to be necessary and insignificant but that ignited the first Indian War of Independence. I'm not suggesting this helmet issue is as dramatic but it's a similar imposition of something banal without understanding what that means to the receiving group.

c) The raging debate on Foxhunting in Britain is similarly related also. This sees the morals of an urban population, who are quite detached from the lifestyles and livelihood or rural foxhunting, being imposed on another group who stand to lose their livelihoods as a result.

And there are a number of instances similar in history and current affairs.

Let's bring it back to earth now. Let's remember that these Mongol races are perhaps not the best example to be discussing this with. Afterall only 5% of these child jockeys fall off each year and UNICEF are only proposing that they wear helmets. But this parallels the dynamic which causes one nation to bring it upon themselves to democratise another. It's also that old healthy & saftey chestnut - does the extension of this logic kill off cultures?

Also significant is to remember that this dynamic is a moral one, which places one set of values over another, assuming superiority and the right to alter the ways of another. It's an imposition of a moral view.

So which do you side with?

I'm in the unicef camp in this one.
Getting the kids to wear such a basic thing as a helmet helps healt and safety of these children more than it damages Mongolian traditions imho.
If Unicef were demanding that the races should be stopped, I wouldn't support them. But they not even suggesting that there should be some lower age limit, they only suggesting helmets.
I think it would be appropriate for them to supply the helmets in this case though.

Man, you forgot to mention some reefers there. You must have been on a low.

Yes Mathilda, I totally agree, given the small demands being made. The helmets seem sensible.

BUT!!!! - I guess I put the poll up with the wrong words. I'm trying to make the poll about the wider issue of whether one group has the right to impose its views and morals on another.

The titles of each option shouldn't be taken too literally. Sorry should have made that clearer.

Ok, sorry ram, let me rephrase that answer then.
Yes, I think they do, within limits.
I fully believe that anyone is allowed to speak against mutilations, such as female circumcision. And Unicef is allowed to plead and provide helmets.
It doesn't mean that anyone is allowed to go there with a gun and demand at gunpoint that the kids will now have to wear helmets.
If we, or anyone, has knowledge that they feel would genuinly help others to a better life, they are allowed to spread that information. But not by violent means.

Is that better?

Oh brother, now Ive got to start worrying about underage, helmetless Mongolian jockeys?

Anyway, let the Mongolians be Mongolian. Have we learned nothing? Just because we think the jockeys should wear helmets doesnt mean we have the right to force them to.

Is this thread the result of a full joint, or just half?

Oh by the way, get a room fellas

@ Mathilda: Still in agreement with you there . Any group can say what they want but I'm increasingly dubious about people's claims to have a right to go in and change other people's way of life. It only seems to cause trouble.

I guess I was more posting to point out that the poll option wording shouldn't be taken literally.

@ Bozo: Yup there's a new PC campaign that needs fighting now. Up the Mongol sunhat jockeys!!!

And re: your question, I have been awake for quite some time so it's a heck of a lot more than that! I've also just had a mail order of loads of wild funk on vinyl arrive and well....

Rambuchan said:

BUT!!!![/B] - I guess I put the poll up with the wrong words. I'm trying to make the poll about the wider issue of whether one group has the right to impose its views and morals on another.

Click to expand...

When will people stop trying to impose their morals (or lack of them) on others? Never. I think the best we can do is try to mitigate the terrible consequences that inevitably follow.

I don't like what these Mongolians are doing, but I will die for their right to do it. Well, not really, but I'll let these little helmetless kids die for it. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

But seriously, to answer the broad question of whether we have the right to interefere in other cultures: Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. I'm not sure how I could possibly answer the question without getting into specifics (and in this specific case, in case you're wondering, I suppport the right of us to force the kids to wear helmets, but not to stop the races completely). I guess I'll just have to go with the reefer option.

WillJ said:

But seriously, to answer the broad question of whether we have the right to interefere in other cultures: Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. I'm not sure how I could possibly answer the question without getting into specifics (and in this specific case, in case you're wondering, I suppport the right of us to force the kids to wear helmets, but not to stop the races completely).

Click to expand...

So it's more important to force the kids to wear helmets than to force north korea to feed its people?

Birdjaguar said:

So it's more important to force the kids to wear helmets than to force north korea to feed its people?

Click to expand...

How exactly do you see that in what I said?

WillJ said:

I don't like what these Mongolians are doing, but I will die for their right to do it. Well, not really, but I'll let these little helmetless kids die for it. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

But seriously, to answer the broad question of whether we have the right to interefere in other cultures: Sometimes we do, sometimes we don't. I'm not sure how I could possibly answer the question without getting into specifics (and in this specific case, in case you're wondering, I suppport the right of us to force the kids to wear helmets, but not to stop the races completely). I guess I'll just have to go with the reefer option.

Click to expand...

Yes the option of going for the reefer is always appealing .

But seriously, I hoped that by exaggerating the logic of both camps we might be able to discuss the issue but I take your point that we need specifics and that this is too mild an example. When I was putting the OP together I did a dramatisation which saw the helmets either stopping such a practise altogether, or drastically altering the meaning of the races for the Mongolian people.

Do you think we should assume such an extension so we've got something more concrete to debate on?

It's their country and their traditions, so no need to say them what and how they should do it. They're not dumb, they know what helmets are, and IF they feel they have to make it more safety, they'll enforce their population to wear helmets.

With that kind of thinking, we should also stop boxing, ski, football(injuries), diving/surfing(dangerous fishes!), extreme sports, etc...

We also have some kind of horse riding tradition over here(without helmets), and also people get injured sometimes.

btw: sometimes I'm PC, sometimes I'm not PC --- I don't take my decisions based on PC's.

WillJ said:

How exactly do you see that in what I said?

Click to expand...

It's not specifically there, but if you value the safety of the mongol kids sufficiently to intervene into their cultural tradition and force action, I wonder if you value the lives of millions of north Koreans sufficiently to intervene and provide them food. Your post raised the question in my mind, but it is directed at everyone. If you are going to intervene into the cultural life of foreigners why not do so about something important rather than a stupid triviality.

The only time Mongols should wear helmets is when they go to war. Come on, these are the same people as Gengis Khan, they can take it. The weak have no place on the steppe.

If Mongolians filed an official protest with the UN about our Little League players playing with inadequate protection, we'd all have a good laugh.

Bozo Erectus said:

If Mongolians filed an official protest with the UN about our Little League players playing with inadequate protection, we'd all have a good laugh.

Click to expand...

That would be pretty funny.

Rambuchan said:

Yes the option of going for the reefer is always appealing .

But seriously, I hoped that by exaggerating the logic of both camps we might be able to discuss the issue but I take your point that we need specifics and that this is too mild an example. When I was putting the OP together I did a dramatisation which saw the helmets either stopping such a practise altogether, or drastically altering the meaning of the races for the Mongolian people.

Do you think we should assume such an extension so we've got something more concrete to debate on?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure such a dramatic extension makes sense. After all, it doesn't really make anything more concrete; quite the opposite (we're having to imagine the helmets changing the races completely, and to balance that out we'd probably have to imagine them being magical safety devices that give the kids superpowers). Allow me to spell out my thoughts on the issue, then try to evaluate things myself.

Some might see this as our wishes versus the Mongolians' wishes. But as long as we care about this, and we're not evil people who deliberately want to make the Mongolians' lives worse, our wishes should be congruent with the Mongolians' (their true wishes, not necessarily what they think they wish...see below). Otherwise, who are we helping exactly?

There are two things here that make this especially interesting:

1. Incongruencies between what the people think they want and what they really want---that is, people not knowing what's good for them. Consider a drug user: He might think he wants the drug, but is it really what's best for him? Similarly, the Mongolians might think their traditions are worth keeping, but is safety really something to ignore when considering what's good for them? If the Mongolians are really and truly mistaken, that's the only justification for interefering. But it brings up a problem: How can we know we're right and they're wrong? Some would say only the individuals in question know best, not any third-parties. Others would say you should always do what you think is right. Most would take a position in between those two extremes.

2. Different Mongolians might have incongruent wishes. Think about the Aztecs and their human sacrifices for an exaggerated comparison. It's not all that crazy to think that the Aztecs as a whole liked human sacrifice, but the person being sacrificed might have some different thoughts (although he might try to suppress them due to social conditioning). The Mongolians here are the Aztecs, and the little kid jockeys are the sacrificees. Some might say that in such a situation, we must take the Utilitarian approach and try to maximize happiness, and thus probably side with the society (unless the harm placed on the harmed individuals is extreme, like the Aztec human sacrifice, but not like the Mongolian races). Others would say that inalienable rights must be considered, in this case the arguably inalienable right of children to not be put in unnecessary danger---regardless of whether the society at large demands it.

Now, I personally am a follower of Utilitarianism in most cases, and so I want to maximize the Mongolians' happiness. And I think the pros of forced helmets outweigh the cons; if the Mongolians don't see that, I think they're wrong with enough confidence to feel justified in forcing them to go against their "wishes." Now, if we do anything beyond force them to wear helmets, the extra benefits of safety probably begin to dwindle in comparison with the extra negatives of tradition-erasing. And as an added bonus, the Mongolians would agree with me there.

King Alexander said:

It's their country and their traditions, so no need to say them what and how they should do it. They're not dumb, they know what helmets are, and IF they feel they have to make it more safety, they'll enforce their population to wear helmets.

With that kind of thinking, we should also stop boxing, ski, football(injuries), diving/surfing(dangerous fishes!), extreme sports, etc...

We also have some kind of horse riding tradition over here(without helmets), and also people get injured sometimes.

btw: sometimes I'm PC, sometimes I'm not PC --- I don't take my decisions based on PC's.

Click to expand...

There's a law around here that kids riding bikes have to wear helmets. Is that unacceptable?

Birdjaguar said:

It's not specifically there, but if you value the safety of the mongol kids sufficiently to intervene into their cultural tradition and force action, I wonder if you value the lives of millions of north Koreans sufficiently to intervene and provide them food. Your post raised the question in my mind, but it is directed at everyone. If you are going to intervene into the cultural life of foreigners why not do so about something important rather than a stupid triviality.

Click to expand...

I thought we were discussing whether people have the right to interefere with the Mongolians' races. Not whether or not I personally would spend the time and money (both scarce resources that could be alotted to other things, like starving North Koreans) to interefere.

I think surely people have the right to have different priorities from you and I, and decide to help the Mongolian kids (although it's debatable whether it's "helping" them and thus whether it's righteous, which is why this thread exists) instead of the North Koreans. Just like bimbo celebrities have the right to help poor, cute little animals, when there are humans out there who are just as pitiful. If you take the opposite position, that sets up a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify a completely command economy.

I say force them to wear helmets.

Birdjaguar said:

So it's more important to force the kids to wear helmets than to force north korea to feed its people?

Click to expand...

Birdjaguar said:

It's not specifically there, but if you value the safety of the mongol kids sufficiently to intervene into their cultural tradition and force action, I wonder if you value the lives of millions of north Koreans sufficiently to intervene and provide them food. Your post raised the question in my mind, but it is directed at everyone. If you are going to intervene into the cultural life of foreigners why not do so about something important rather than a stupid triviality.

Click to expand...

Well these are two different questions. I'd rather interfere with mongolian customs because the cost-benefit ratio is better, not because I think it's more important.