Cultural Confusion

I recently watched a good deal of a tv marathon of the Travel Channel show Living with the Kombai Tribe. The show chronicles the adventures of two men who have traveled to East Papua New Guinea to live with one of the most culturally backward people in the world, the Kombai Tribe. It was admittedly fascinating trek, one that seemingly took the viewer back in time to prehistoric days. But the lives that were shown were extremely shallow. Almost every day was devoted to simply surviving.
It makes one wonder for what purpose these people survive. Or perhaps they were so busy worrying about how to survive they never bother to examine the philosophical questions. The people of the Kombai tribe certainly don’t live the most fulfilling lives. When a newly married couple was asked if they were in love, they said no. The marriage was made out of convenience. Marriage was for making babies, not for love. Women were bought for a marriage, apparently with out any say in the matter. Members of their family were murdered because of real or perceived wrongs, regardless of proof of guilt. Revenge killings are common. Superstition and ritual usurp reason. A member of the family had been accused of being possessed by an evil spirit and thus, shunned since his youth. Nowhere except for one celebratory feast was there any signs of joy or happiness. Or any recreation at all for that matter.
At the end of the series, as the men who spent several weeks living with these people were preparing to leave, they made their summarizing statements. One of the statements blew me away. Mark, the explorer of the two, said what he learned on his trip, the great lesson that he garnered from this incredible step back in time, was that he (and Western civilization in general, naturally) needed to be more tolerant. Of course, he and his journalistic cohort did everything they possibly could do to submit themselves to the Kombai tribe’s way of life while they were there, including becoming adopted by the family they were living with, forgoing the rations that they brought with for the food that the Kombai tribe ate, often going hungry with very little to eat. In the end they even adopted the Kombai tribe’s decidedly immodest mode of dress, at least for the feast. In short, they conformed themselves to the society that they were living in. They never tried to push more advanced technology like a steel axe instead of the ancient stone axe that the tribe used. In short, there was nothing that they could have done to be more tolerant. Yet we no longer expect people to even speak English in this country, let alone become integrated into our society. And the Kombai people were far from models of tolerance. And unless you consider murdering people you have disputes with the height of tolerance, the Kombai tribe was extremely intolerant.
But the main problem I had with this view was the implication that we had something to learn from them. As if their culture was comparable to anything in the west. This is the meaning of multiculturalism, the fruit of Relativism, naked and ugly. Much like the people of the Kombai tribe, but I digress. The point is that civilization is a good thing for people. Dental care is good. Hospitals are good. Supermarkets, electricity, clothing, banks, stores, eye doctors, indoor plumbing, privacy, transportation, air conditioning…good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good, good and good. Reading and writing, books, schools and libraries…good, good, good, good and good. In short, a culture is only as good as what it produces. The Kombai tribe? It produces no works of literature, no art work of any kind, no music, and maybe a few barely functional buildings of dubious safety. It exports nothing and adds nothing to society at large. It produces barely enough for physical survival of its members. Its members live lives that more closely resemble that of animals than of modern, rational humans. 
But we cannot make any statements as to the inferiority of such cultures in the world we live in. Obviously, the people of the Kombai tribe are no less human than anyone else. Indeed, the humanity of their emotions seem almost hyper real. But to make a statement of the inferiority of their culture does not mean that these are inferior people.This seems to be the issue that liberals and multiculturalists cannot grasp. Monotheism, Christianity, personal liberty, logic, individualism, and justice–these are the values (among others) that our society holds. Some cultures hold similar values, but none has the same history or the same level of freedom. And that is why this is the greatest nation on God’s green earth. 

Rejecting Subjectivity

I have finally started getting into the eye opening book Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him. I must admit that I had never even heard of Che Guevara prior to hearing the author of this particular book being interviewed on my personal form of crack, talk radio. It is sufficient to state here that this Che guy was no mother Theresa. Okay, that’s not true, it isn’t sufficient to say that. Che Guevara was a very evil guy. He ordered the execution of hundreds, much in the same manner of the Khmer Rouge. (If you don’t know who the Khmer Rouge is, to quote Al Gore, you should “inform yourself”)
There was one particular story in the book that really struck a chord with me. It was something that I experience on a regular basis, yet every time it surprises me to the point of dumbfoundedness. It is the rejection of truth that doesn’t fit one’s worldview. This is the thinking–or rather, feeling–that allows people to believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories when the truth is out in the open. A Cuban American who was wearing a home made tshirt that said “Che is dead- get over it” was approached by a big Che fan, Carlos Santana. Santana told him “Che may be dead for you…but he lives in our hearts…Che is all about love and compassion” Of course, Che Guevara is all about the love and compassion that comes through mass murder, total subjugation, a complete lack of freedom and forced poverty and destitution. The Cuban American began informing Santana of the evils of Che. Santana replied, “You’re getting hung up on facts, man. We’re only free when we free our hearts.” This is truly how many, probably most liberals think today. They think with their hearts. It makes one wonder what they do with their head. They don’t want to be confused with the facts, because reality often disagrees with their theories. The reality is that Che Guevara was a jailer of rockers, hipsters and gays. He was a bon vivant, momma’s boy, a poser and snob. He was a military doofus and a murderer of women and children. He was a thief, a book burner, brownnoser, bully, and he was Fidel’s chief executioner. He was the godfather of terrorism. He was exactly the opposite of what Hollywood and other useful idiots will tell you he was.
Of course these same people would tell you that George W. Bush is evil incarnate, despite the fact that he has done the exact opposite of what Che has done. These people quite literally idolize Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. Yet these people are the same ones who love so much to protest, who claim to love freedom of speech, who constantly are fighting for “rights.” But Fidel, Che and Hugo all have restricted rights and freedoms, they have stifled free speech and attacked protestors. The USA, despite what liberals might tell you, is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful, most generous, and greatest nation on God’s green earth. It is liberals who want to change this for the worst, just look at their idols.