I guess we all would like to live in a world which is fair and everyone is given a chance to find happiness, right? And in this increasingly globalized world, this means we have to find ways to live in peace with people from different backgrounds and cultures. Having that in mind, I'd like to look at two common approaches to cultural diplomacy.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This is a very common approach and we can see evidence for it everywhere. The president of the US bows to the emperor of Japan, the Pope visits a mosque when in Jordan. Doing as Romans do shows you come in peace, and is one of the first steps towards establishing good relations. I consider this to be a very nice approach, from the point of view of the non-Romans, the guests. But from the point of view of the Romans themselves, the hosts, that's a totally different story, and I don't quite agree with acting as a Roman.
What I mean by this is that Romans shouldn't be expecting everyone who comes from outside to do as they do. If they are really interested in peace and understanding, that is. When we are the ones receiving a guest, the peaceful approach is "mi casa su casa": make yourself comfortable, my home is your home, my Rome is your Rome. That's because when talking about world peace, an intolerant host is as bad as an intolerant visitor.
I might be wrong, but I think mi casa is not as widespread an approach as the Roman approach. We quickly defend Saudi Arabia forbidding "infidels" from entering Mecca, but we also feel in the right to defend our country forbidding Muslim girls to wear the burqa. We are very good at doing as the Romans do, but I dare to say we only do so in order to require our visitors to do as we do when in our casa. Call me wrong, but I don't think this is a very understanding and peaceful position. For me, the honest peaceful attitude is that of tolerance, whether in mi casa or su Rome.
2 comments:
Hey! nice post :) I agree on the initiative that we should all have towards each other in a "live and let live" kind of way.
What is a little bit difficult though is that people living in a certain place develop customs specific to that place, and they feel a connection, almost as an ownership to that place. They will be inclined to ask you to leave if you dont like it, or to adapt to the "place"'s customs. Which to me is ridiculous because no one really owns a pieace of this earth right? Why should people limit themselves to visiting places where they share the same customs? The world is ours and we should all be able to see it.
I think in order to make this "mi casa su casa" behavior prevail, we must first overcome the thought that we have exclusive ownership over some territory, that we call it "ours". We would have to overcome nationalism. We are so far from that. People are in fact fighting in order to establish their own countries, from the Philippines to the middle east to places in Europe. Why? so that in those countries they can live as they want, with the religion they want, and the rules that they want for themselves. Border disputes are still common. We are ver far from this "mi casa es su casa", sadly.
What I have observed though, is that in places where the "mi casa su casa" attitude prevails, foreigners are flocking and enriching the society... even foreigners from "not so free" countries. Take for example London, a multicultural society that does not impose a specific culture and people can retain their customs. And there you see a higher quality of life, more tolerance, and more freedom for its inhabitants.
Yeah we should strive for this. Not because "my country is your country" but because this earth, the entirety of it, is the home of everyone. This earth is my home as much as yours, putting rules about "my country" makes no sense. Countries are imaginary.
Nice post.
Just a note on London.. there is a debate about the burka there, so i dont know how "free" it is.
the complication arises with religion however, because religion is not tolerant and seeks to impose itself to other people...so to limit religious practices to me, is not so bad if it is done in the name of freedom. If we are based on the assumption that religion spreads and it oppresses, then you would want to limit its reach in order to protect the "mi casa su casa" ideal. or else "mi casa" would be come a church, a mosque, or something of the sort.
however if someone is wearing a burka just because they like it, like anyone could wear a hat, then this is not a religious topic. it is just a fashion statement. so it is not about people in free societies being offended about a person with a burka, it is about religion.
how do you solve this chapulina? with the current religions do you allow them to spread freely?
or place limits?
Post a Comment