Reaction Paper

Lecture Note D: Cultural Domination

Multiculturalism holds that, for the most part, all cultural beliefs are inherently and equally valid, that one cultural perspective cannot morally be viewed as superior to another. This view has led to a belief that the domination of one culture over another is morally wrong. A consequence of this is to vilify the dominant culture as oppressive and view the subjugated culture as oppressed. That history is wrought with demonstrations of human domination and oppression is undeniable in many respects. The rights, identity, and even the very existence of one group of people have been forfeited to the benefit of another group of people. A commonly held story of multiculturalism goes something like this: In an earlier era, indigenous people lived upon the land, more often than not, in a state of balance and harmony with their environment and each other. The society of indigenous people possessed their own unique culture and social institutions; their own language, religion, food, social institutions, laws, medicine. When human problems and disputes arose, the society had ways of handling such issues in a manner that the members of that society considered fair and equitable. The beliefs and values of the society were taught to the young and provided guidance for all members of the society. People lived, worked, loved, and procreated, consistent with the natural order of things in the on-going circle of birth, life, and death. However, this state of stability and relative happiness was disrupted when the indigenous people encountered the outsiders. The outsiders were members of a different cultural group, perhaps identified with a separate and different tribe, clan, or nation. The outsiders, in some aspects, were different from the indigenous people. While the outsiders were similarly human in some respects, in other ways they were different. Perhaps they spoke a different language or had an unfamiliar accent, maybe they worshiped a different God or Gods (or none at all), perhaps the just looked or dressed different, or perhaps they possessed different beliefs, world views, or values. Whatever, the essential differences, the outsiders were not like the indigenous people. Contact with the outsiders may have occurred in many forms. The initial contact may have been isolated and infrequent, such as the case of explorers or frontiersman in 16th and 17th century North American wilderness. Or the contact may have been immediate, immense and overwhelming, as in the case of an invading army seeking land and riches, as was the case of the Spanish conquest of central Mexico in the 15th century. Either because they overwhelmed the indigenous people by sheer numbers, or because they were more technologically advanced and successful in waging war, the outsiders conquered and came to dominate the indigenous people. The technology and trade goods of the outsiders seduced the indigenous people resulting in an erosion, or in extreme cases a total loss, of their previous cultural identity. Typically, the language, religion, beliefs, and customs of the indigenous people were displaced by those of the outsiders. While vestiges of the indigenous culture might remain, over time contact with the outsiders brought destruction. to the indigenous culture. The stronger came to

dominate the weaker. If this story of cultural influence is widely endorsed, that indigenous people (now more accurately viewed as a minority group or culture) are conquered or oppressed by outsiders (now more correctly viewed as the dominant culture, since they are no longer outside), then it is understandable why persons identifying with the minority group would feel both a personal and collective sense of oppression at the hands of members of the dominant cultural group. Similarly, it is understandable that members of the dominant culture might struggle, individually and collectively, with a sense of past and present injustice and inequity. Cultural evolution and natural selection Defendants of the cultural domination paradigm hold that the indigenous culture came to dominated by the outside culture because the outside culture brought values, beliefs, and institutions which worked better than those of the former indigenous culture. Cultural Darwinism in which survival of the fittest, cultural evolution in the sense of natural selection of useful traits. This view of members of one culture dominating the members of another cultural group is certainly a correct view. But it is not the only correct view. Further, it may not be the most useful view. Alternatively, it may be argued that there is no such thing as a "dominant" culture since cultures which interact exert a mutual influence over one another. As such it is not one culture which dominates another, but ideas. Over time, useful ideas dominate.

B,Canfield