Is individual culture still possible?

Human rights has been a huge topic of the twenty-first century but is all the conversation really worth it? Human rights movements all over the world argue that there are certain laws and beliefs that should be globally recognised by every nation in the world. This is good at a face value but a huge problem arises when these beliefs are pushed worldwide onto many different cultures that have opposing values. 

A world of cultures

Imagine this: Western society, the culture and people who are the source of most human rights movements globally decide: We are going to push the idea that there should be a few minimalistic laws that govern the whole world. Sounds good right? Sure. A massive underlying problem would appear. 

Humanity for the longest time has been tribal. By that I mean; the first form of human togetherness was in tribes, made of anywhere between 20-100 people who scoured the earth for her food and water. Only in the last few thousand years have we - as a species - officially recognised large groups of people as nations or one overarching body of people brought together - now this is the important bit so pay attention - by ideology. Understanding this is absolutely vital in understanding my point. If we were to push a set of laws - otherwise known as enforced ideology - onto a state that doesn’t share the same beliefs, we can end up with a world of common tenets where humanity enters an echo chamber of principles. 


This is extremely dangerous.


If there is no one to propose or explain opposing thoughts - because we are all either forced to conform to the global laws or, we believe in them personally - things spiral out of sanity. Take for example communist China; Mao and the CCP for decades dictated the national ideology through authoritarian enforcement and propaganda to create a cult of personality controlled by a manic old man. Things got progressively worse and worse for the Chinese people, going from one twisted law to another at the whim of Mao…


As Mao got increasingly power crazed so did his philosophies. Without intervention from old age China could have gotten very out of hand.


Now imagine this happening to the whole world. Not good huh? 


This argument is only valid of course if freedom of movement is upheld. Because society only works with subscription of beliefs, if the country you were born into does not share the same beliefs then you should be free to move to a country that does.


Can you see the problem?


This all makes sense when you aren’t thinking about immigration, but as soon as you consider how most countries aren’t too happy with mass movement of people the issue comes to mind. Western culture - for as long as the west has existed - has been consistently forcing its beliefs onto anyone who opposes them. This is currently one of the main causes of non-warfare based immigration. Globalization has enabled the west to successfully infiltrate the culture of the east and force its way into the minds of others; applying a façade of media in the slow integration of “Human rights” into the world. 


Some might say this is causing a huge movement of people who have had their cultures alienated from them by those whom they seek to join.  


Then again we can’t deny the fact that people - even before the age of the internet and of globalization - felt alienated by their own culture. For example in the old Chinese era (200 BCE) if you one day woke up and thought, “I disagree with my village” or “I like women” that isn’t necessarily from external influence or an outer body of beliefs, it may have just happened off one’s own accord. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Andrew Tate really that bad?

Israel-Palestine: The reasons behind the rubble