• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Curse of Cultural Awareness

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Inactive
Reaction score
63
Points
530
Very interesting article from Strategypage. Cultural awareness is a double edge sword it would seem.Oil countries buy their technical experts rather than creating their own is one obvious problem. Arab countries have fallen behind not only the west economically but also the east. Reversing this will be the salvation for the arab world but not easily acheived.

The Curse of Cultural Awareness

January 8, 2007: The war on terror puts a premium on "cultural awareness." But in the Arab world, being aware of the culture, and reporting on it accurately, can be considered politically incorrect back home. Consider, for example, some of the things that expatriates, working in Arabia, have been reporting for decades, and now thousands of U.S. troops are experiencing as well.


Arabs have a different attitude towards work. While Americans have a thing for "keeping busy" and being entrepreneurs, Arabs look up to the man of leisure. Government jobs, which require little work, are much sought after in the Arab countries. While there are hard workers and entrepreneurs in Arab countries, they are not admired as they are in the United States. This difference in attitudes creates all sorts of "culture clash" problems, as both groups see their attitudes as the natural and normal ones. Each groups sees the others attitudes as alien and odd. However, the lack of hard work and initiative is a major reason why the Arab world has fallen behind other cultures in the last fifty years. Arab countries with oil have used a lot of the money to hire foreigners to do their work for them, rather than investing in their economy and education. Thus countries like South Korea, which has no oil, and was poorer than most Arab countries half a century, is now wealthier than any Arab nation. The South Korean example is one of many similar ones in the Far East and other parts of the world. Arabs are coming to accept that their work habits may have something to do with their shabby economic condition, but this is still a minority opinion.


Arabs really have a problem with personal responsibility, which is a bedrock characteristic in any strong economy. The cause of this Arab problem is the concept of "inshallah" ("If God wills it.") This is a basic tenet of Islam, although some scholars believe the attitude preceded that religion. In any event, "inshallah" is deadly when combined with modern technology. For this reason, Arab countries either have poorly maintained infrastructure and equipment (including military stuff), or import a lot of foreigners, possessing the right attitudes, to maintain everything. That minority of Arabs who do have the right attitude towards maintenance and personal responsibility are considered odd, but useful. The "inshallah" thing is made worse by a stronger belief in the supernatural, and magic in general. This often extends to technology. Thus many Iraqis believe that American troops wear sunglasses that see through clothing, and armor vests that are actually air conditioned. When they first encounter these beliefs, U.S. troops thought the Arabs are putting them on. Then it sinks in that Arabs really believe this stuff. It's a scary moment.


Arab loyalties rarely put nation at the top. Family, clan and tribe always come first. This is not unusual, but the lack of patriotism is definitely more pronounced in Arab lands. This also leads to trust issues, since foreigners are considered the ultimate outsider, and someone an Arab is free to exploit any way he can. Building trust with Arabs is difficult. You can do favors, even save lives, and that will get you some gratitude. But friendship in the Western sense is hard to come by, and easily lost. This is further complicated by religious issues. Islam has a strong "us versus them" component. Westerners who are Moslems have a much easier time getting along, but will eventually encounter that Arab attitude that there are Arab Moslems, and then all manner of inferior non-Arab Moslems.


Arabs are more inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, and weird stuff in general. Many Arabs really believe that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were all an Israel or CIA plot, and that Arabs had nothing to do with. This despite the fact that Osama bin Laden has publicly taken credit for the attacks. Just go take a look at the English language versions of some Arab newspapers for some examples. Note that the Arab language versions are even more out there. Arabs who learn English also tend to learn that the world is not as wild and fantastical as they were raised to believe, and results in the English versions of Arab media being rather more sedate.


Islam tends to discourage Western "two points of view" type thinking. Many religions think of themselves as the "one true faith," but Islam is rather more insistent about that point. This is why so much terrorism these days is carried out by Islamic radicals. While only a minority of Arabs are that fanatical, the majority believe Arabs are right, and the rest of the world is not. And there's no room for discussing this matter. This attitude makes compromise difficult.

Arabs are well aware of the fact that the rest of the world, especially their ancient enemy, the Christian West, but also the rather more alien Far East, have surpassed the Arab world economically, and in many other ways as well. The popular Arab response is that it's all a foreign conspiracy to destroy  Islamic civilization. This sort of thing is alien thinking to most Americans, who take if for granted that Arabs could fix all their problems if they just united and got down to work. But the divisions of tribe and clan, plus "inshallah", makes that very difficult. For many Arabs, it's "them or us," not "them and us." Arabs, more than Westerners, see the current wave of Islamic terrorism as a battle of civilizations. This attitude is slowly changing in the Arab world, but the majority of Arabs still see themselves as blameless victims of Western oppression.
 
We in the west suffer from our own points of view, to the defeat of most changes we try to instill. What we call democracy, is not how the world views democracy in their own context. We condemn religious view, then listen to a right wing president of the US spout religious rhetoric...isn't the west just as much a contradition?
 
GAP said:
We in the west suffer from our own points of view, to the defeat of most changes we try to instill. What we call democracy, is not how the world views democracy in their own context. We condemn religious view, then listen to a right wing president of the US spout religious rhetoric...isn't the west just as much a contradition?

President Bush may be right wing to you, but he isnt one to me.Nor does he spout religious rhetoric. Now Iran's leadership spouts religious rhetoric. Personally I dont think the west has a firm religious foundation like we saw in the 40's and 50's. As a result we are ill prepared to confront enemies that have such a foundation. The goal of the islamists is to eventually impose islam on the rest of the world. The big difference between we in the west and the islamists represented by Iran is that they cannot compromise.
 
tomahawk6 said:
President Bush may be right wing to you, but he isn't one to me.Nor does he spout religious rhetoric.

No disrespect intended, but you are too close to see it. I am viewing it from another (though similar) culture, at a distance, and , pardon me, but he comes across that way. That may not be the way it is interpreted in the US, but from the outside looking in, it sure looks like a duck.

Does he come across like the Islamic Radicals? Not at all, but everything does seem to have a slight religious undertone. Just a point of view.
 
Perhaps it seems that way because Canada has lost its religious roots so to speak ? Canada has gone too far down the road to multiculturalism and religion is sacrificed as a result.
 
No offence sir, T6, but I disagree. There is NOTHING WRONG with the multiculturalism first espoused in the 1960s in Canada by PM Trudeau. Religion is not sacrificed as a result of differences, but rather grows stronger because within diversity comes tolerance and thus peace because each other's religious views are respected. For someone who like you who has worked for the govt./military you should be well aware that the seperation of church of state should very well apply not only in our case but in your nation's case as well.

Thus no one can ever go too far down the road to multiculturalism. The diversity of a culture opens people to new ideas and thus makes the adoptive country's culture stronger.

 
you should be well aware that the seperation of church of state should very well apply not only in our case but in your nation's case as well.

According to whom?
 
In God We Trust is on our money. Our constitution does not say anywhere about seperation of church and state.
 
Our constitution does not say anywhere about seperation of church and state

Bingo. The point I was leading up to.....
 
(trying to get thread back on track)

It is pathetic how little Western forces know about the cultures they are interacting with.
The reverse is also true, but I am focusing on some preception, some personal experience and general observations.
 
Gentlemen,

So you are saying that we just DUMP multiculturalism and GO away all the way with intolerance and just dump the our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms?  Or the Bill of Rights as in the US case?

What are you saying then?


T6,
With all due respect, sir, in spite of all the religious allusions in many govt. symbols, such as the ones you pointed out, and the US President's need to swear an oath on a Bible during his inaguruation, the US govt. is very much a SECULAR govt. and the US is a very secular country since we don't see any Priests or Clerics from any religion attached to any part of the US govt., as it is with the Iranian govt. with the Ayatollahs and the Sharia Council (if I'm not mistaken) with the current Supreme Leader Khamenei (Khomeini's successor) who technically has more power than that jerk President Ahmedijinad. Canada is also a very secular country as well, even if we still recognize the Queen of England as the head of Commonwealth, but we don't necessarily see her as our religous head as the British Monarch is in the Anglican Church.


With all due respect, MULTICULTURALISM is NOT a myth. It works in America pretty much and it works here. We don't have large ethnic civil wars as we saw in the Balkans or some nations in Africa.

 
With all due respect, sir, in spite of all the religious allusions in many govt. symbols, such as the ones you pointed out, and the US President's need to swear an oath on a Bible during his inaguruation,

With all due respect, when it comes to things American, you know not of what you speak. I suggest you limit your scope of expertise to things Canadian.

Lots of religious references regarding Presidential inaugurations foung here http://inaugural.senate.gov/history/factsandfirsts/  GWB was no pioneer in swearing on a bible  ::)
 
Good article and thanks for posting it.  :salute:

CougarKing said:
No offence sir, T6, but I disagree. There is NOTHING WRONG with the multiculturalism first espoused in the 1960s in Canada by PM Trudeau.

And that is probably the last year that anyone who had to deal with it thought it was a great idea in its unbridled form.  Today's manic fever for appearing "tolerant" has led to much ridiculous policy just to apologize for not being of a European (minus French) based culture.
As well, the inference of "tolerance" is that you are forcing yourself to tolerate something.  Does that not imply that you find it distasteful, and are forcing yourself to not react to it?  How is that going to help anything?  "Tolerance" has become a byword for "if you don't like it, shut up because it is different and therefore special and precious".  How about we all strive for "indifference"?  As in "I don't care if you are Muslim/Christian/Native/French/Gay/Disabled/Conjoined-Intraspecies Twin".  You go do what you need to do and have fun with it.  Have a festival in a park.  Apply for and conduct a parade.  I just don't care.  Just don't make your differences my problem.  By simply ignoring the differences and working/playing/learning along side all of our diverse citizens we will figure it out on our own.  If we stop highlighting the differences, then it won't occur to anyone that they exist.  I have two kids that are in school who have never once asked my wife or I why someones skin was a different colour.  It just hasn't occurred to them.  Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was that "indifferent"? 
 
With all due respect, when it comes to things American, you know not of what you speak. I suggest you limit your scope of expertise to things Canadian.

Muskrat,

And with the same due respect to you, don't assume that I don't know about our good American neighbors, having spent high school and finished my undegrad in Poli Sci there before I immigrated here to Canada (I'm not from America or Canada- I won't elaborate).
 
CougarKing said:
Gentlemen,

So you are saying that we just DUMP multiculturalism and GO away all the way with intolerance and just dump the our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms?  Or the Bill of Rights as in the US case?

What are you saying then?


T6,
With all due respect, sir, in spite of all the religious allusions in many govt. symbols, such as the ones you pointed out, and the US President's need to swear an oath on a Bible during his inaguruation, the US govt. is very much a SECULAR govt. and the US is a very secular country since we don't see any Priests or Clerics from any religion attached to any part of the US govt., as it is with the Iranian govt. with the Ayatollahs and the Sharia Council (if I'm not mistaken) with the current Supreme Leader Khamenei (Khomeini's successor) who technically has more power than that jerk President Ahmedijinad. Canada is also a very secular country as well, even if we still recognize the Queen of England as the head of Commonwealth, but we don't necessarily see her as our religous head as the British Monarch is in the Anglican Church.


With all due respect, MULTICULTURALISM is NOT a myth. It works in America pretty much and it works here. We don't have large ethnic civil wars as we saw in the Balkans or some nations in Africa.

While this subject would make for an interesting thread in its own right the point is that cultural awareness is one thing dealing effectively with people in say Iraq where there is a culture of corruption.Do you setup rules that government officials can only charge so much for a bribe ? Or do you try to get people to understand the concept of public service ? Corruption is not isolated to arab countries but also Latin American countries and even in the US.
 
Gentlemen....when I commented on the religious undertones by the US President, I was referring to him sucking up to the massive religious right contingent. They are an immense voting block in the US.

In respect to other presidents Bush seems to make more comments that seem designed to appeal to this block then I have seen other presidents do. Does it mean anything....dunno...I was just commenting on my perspective of it.
 
CougarKing said:
Muskrat,

And with the same due respect to you, don't assume that I don't know about our good American neighbors, having spent high school and finished my undegrad in Poli Sci there before I immigrated here to Canada (I'm not from America or Canada- I won't elaborate).

Aw, crap.  Here it comes.   :warstory:
 
zipperhead_cop said:
Good article and thanks for posting it.  :salute:

And that is probably the last year that anyone who had to deal with it thought it was a great idea in its unbridled form.  Today's manic fever for appearing "tolerant" has led to much ridiculous policy just to apologize for not being of a European (minus French) based culture.
As well, the inference of "tolerance" is that you are forcing yourself to tolerate something.  Does that not imply that you find it distasteful, and are forcing yourself to not react to it?  How is that going to help anything?  "Tolerance" has become a byword for "if you don't like it, shut up because it is different and therefore special and precious".  How about we all strive for "indifference"?  As in "I don't care if you are Muslim/Christian/Native/French/Gay/Disabled/Conjoined-Intraspecies Twin".  You go do what you need to do and have fun with it.  Have a festival in a park.  Apply for and conduct a parade.  I just don't care.  Just don't make your differences my problem.  By simply ignoring the differences and working/playing/learning along side all of our diverse citizens we will figure it out on our own.  If we stop highlighting the differences, then it won't occur to anyone that they exist.  I have two kids that are in school who have never once asked my wife or I why someones skin was a different colour.  It just hasn't occurred to them.  Wouldn't it be nice if everyone was that "indifferent"? 

Well Zipperhead Cop, you do have a point about the indifference. But I see nothing wrong with highlighting these differences from time to time. At least it's not like in Iraq where their ethnic differences are a source of sectarian hatred.
 
I assumed nothing. Your statement that I did is in itself, an assumption.

I edited my previous post to include a site referencing inaugurations. Your statement that GW did something outrageous by swearing his oath on a bible is erroneous - per history. I also asked you to point out that there was a "separation of church and state" in the US, and according to whom.

Congratulations on your degree.
 
Here's a link that you might find interesting. Please do not infer this as my answer to your "According to whom?" said that "Seperation of Church and State" was in the US Constitution. I'm still contemplating my response.

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

BTW, NEVER did I say or imply that I or the general public found it outrageous that he swore an oath upon a Bible. Isn't that the tradition at every swearing-in ceremony up from the time of George Washington?
 
Back
Top