Tribal Law vs Law of the Land

[Jivinjeffjones]

I've just returned from Northern Australia, where many Aboriginal people still follow tribal law. One of these laws that was especially notorious in the place I was staying involved arranged marriages, as mentioned in this article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20030222/ai_n12675793). Apparently, if (underage) girls refuse to consummate marriages made without their consent to much older men, tribal law allows for that girl to be given to all the men in the tribe to rape so she won't make such a big fuss about it in the future.

So my question is, what are your thoughts on situations where the laws of an indigenous culture go against the laws of the country (in this case Australia)? Is it right to impose the laws of the land on top of tribal law?

[Architectonic]

So my question is, what are your thoughts on situations where the laws of an indigenous culture go against the laws of the country (in this case Australia)? Is it right to impose the laws of the land on top of tribal law?

In cases involving force against minors, I feel it is right to impose the laws of the country. In cases involving adults, it may be prudent to devolve such law to the tribe. It really depends on your priorities, but I feel that force against minors is never justified, even if it is part of a historical culture.

Such rights protecting children are intended to be universally enforced....

[meanlittlechimp]

In cases involving force against minors, I feel it is right to impose the laws of the country. In cases involving adults, it may be prudent to devolve such law to the tribe. It really depends on your priorities, but I feel that force against minors is never justified, even if it is part of a historical culture.

Such rights protecting children are intended to be universally enforced....

I agree, I would throw in adults too if serious injury were involved.

The article reminded me of a custom in Kyrgyzstan - where you can actually kidnap a woman off the street and try to make her marry you. You have a day to convince her and if she refuses, you have to let her go; which doesn't always happen. There was a pretty interesting documentary about it on Frontline. It's the craziest thing ever, these guys driving in cars, by schools - picking women out and waiting for the right time to snatch em up!

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/kyrgyzstan/thestory.html

[cafe]

I'm all for cultural and religious freedom, but gang-raping a child is beyond what I'd tolerate, were I making or enforcing the laws.

[CoHo]

Fucked up.

Not to be the little storm cloud but how would you enforce these laws while still allowing that culture to remain unchanged? Put a police officer outside every yurt?

[Jivinjeffjones]

Fucked up.

Not to be the little storm cloud but how would you enforce these laws while still allowing that culture to remain unchanged? Put a police officer outside every yurt?

I don't think they can prevent the offences. They can only try to bring a case to bear when the nature of the girls' injuries are disclosed at the hospital. Even then there is a lot of walking on eggshells. The police don't want to look like they are being racist or wantonly suppressing indigenous culture. Plus, there is the legacy of the stolen generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_generation), which makes the media especially sensitive to cases where the state removes aboriginal children from their families, even if it's for the child's protection.

[Mr. Beef]

People need to stop being so respectful of other cultures. It's clear that some cultures are not only different but just plain out stupid. A culture that allows children to be gang-raped is not just different, but assbackwards.

[venerationOFrabbits]

People need to stop being so respectful of other cultures. It's clear that some cultures are not only different but just plain out stupid. A culture that allows children to be gang-raped is not just different, but assbackwards.

I agree.

I would like more information before they decide to pass legislation that allows them to go in and start rounding up children. Is it widespread? and if not what do other tribal communities think of the practice? and exactly how old is this practice? how much of it is actually influenced by modern values and so on.

[demagogic_schizoid]

how much of it is actually influenced by modern values and so on.

Good point. Studies of indigenous South American tribes have shown empirically that their culture today is a result of their relationship to wider society and is not unchanged from the way of life of their ancestors - therefore it is modern, and not backwards. I've written this before in another post but I will write it again. I will use the example of Amazonian Indians. Amazonian tribes are considered to be the least westernized of any indigenous groups in Latin America and their way of life is traditionally seen as the most "authentic" representation of pre-Columbian indigenous life. Now let's look at the staple of their diet: the plantain. The plantain is not native to South America. It was introduced to the region by Europeans (who I believe obtained it from South-East Asia). Let's look at another example: a number of these communities live in villages where the men live in a barrack-like house in the centre of the village, and the women and children live in huts on the outskirts. Entire chapters of their history and mythology are devoted to explaining why this must be the case, why women must not enter the barracks. Yet, in other parts of the Amazon, Indians, sometimes of the same tribe as the ones who live in barracks, organize their villages so that people live in family units. why should this be the case?

Now, we cannot prove for sure that this is the reason, but an analysis of the economy of the region shows that the areas where men live in barracks correlates to the areas where the rubber industry was introduced. In these areas, slaves were brought in to work in the rubber industry, and Indian tribesmen were employed as slave-hunters; effectively, soldiers. Therefore it made sense for the men to live in barracks. The women diversified, and became manioc sellers. In the areas where the people live in family units (and therefore entire swathes of their mythology, culture, religion and beliefs are different) the people have traditionally made a living by farming, for which the most practical organisation is to divide labour up between a family rather than by dividing the sexes.

My point here is not to say, however, that Aborigines who gang-rape should not be prosecuted or children should not be rehoused. Quite the opposite. My point is that cultures are not stagnant or unchanging, and that people who romanticize and wish to protect these ancient ways of life are in fact simply romanticizing and protecting a culture that is no more than an internalization of oppression. I do not explain the injustices of the past to divide people along racial lines and seek some kind of struggle to put right these injustices by punishing the white man, my only point is that if you grant Aborigines the same rights as individuals and encourage them to integrate, there is nothing inherent in their culture which will prevent them from doing so. I believe both the racists of the right and the cultural relativists of the left are wrong - one culture may not be "better" (I don't really see any point in getting into value judgments about it) but neither can a culture be "protected", because once it's exposed to another culture it changes, so we might as well accept that and try to make the changes of globalization work for everyone, rather than try to fight them.

[venerationOFrabbits]

good post Dem, I'll look at it closer later on, I'm in the process of moving right now

[intpgolfer]

"If you made a pile of all the great offenses in all societies - and then removed them one at a time - as you discoved other societies throughout history, which said those same offense would be OK - in the end you would have no offenses left in the pile"

Why have cultures who have eaten other humans, shrunk heads, murdered, buried wives with dead husbands, killed daughters for being raped, bombed women and children and old men for 50,000 - feet to wrongly prevent terrorism? And on and on? Why does it look OK from within? And often it is considered honorable?

Men used to be routinely killed off in wars - so cultures wound up with too many women and not enought men - the result was polyegamy and a devaluing of women. But now warfare is generouse enough to include all sexes equally. I would only guess that the culture in northern australia in the past lost more men - and had ages ago - too many women - so they were less valuable [ only because of greater numbers ] to the culture. Another reason years ago that baby boys were so important - culture needed many of them to die to preserve the culture.

I guess the need for gang raping one of the little girls who would not service an old man - may have been important - when there were few men and the culture needed the few men left to produce as many men babies as possible - and establish a future.

Now days - I bet there are as many men as women - and the investment in future protection has died - but the custom lives on.

If we all get nuked - the old cultural habit described above may need to be looked at again - but for now - lets protect the kids, and throw the old men in jail?

[demagogic_schizoid]

"If you made a pile of all the great offenses in all societies - and then removed them one at a time - as you discoved other societies throughout history, which said those same offense would be OK - in the end you would have no offenses left in the pile"

Why have cultures who have eaten other humans, shrunk heads, murdered, buried wives with dead husbands, killed daughters for being raped, bombed women and children and old men for 50,000 - feet to wrongly prevent terrorism? And on and on? Why does it look OK from within? And often it is considered honorable?

Men used to be routinely killed off in wars - so cultures wound up with too many women and not enought men - the result was polyegamy and a devaluing of women. But now warfare is generouse enough to include all sexes equally. I would only guess that the culture in northern australia in the past lost more men - and had ages ago - too many women - so they were less valuable [ only because of greater numbers ] to the culture. Another reason years ago that baby boys were so important - culture needed many of them to die to preserve the culture.

I guess the need for gang raping one of the little girls who would not service an old man - may have been important - when there were few men and the culture needed the few men left to produce as many men babies as possible - and establish a future.

Now days - I bet there are as many men as women - and the investment in future protection has died - but the custom lives on.

If we all get nuked - the old cultural habit described above may need to be looked at again - but for now - lets protect the kids, and throw the old men in jail?

Well yes, but the point is should modern day Aboriginal tribes be exempt from abiding by the same laws as everyone else in the country? I would answer with a resounding "no".

[TheGiftofWork]

Everyone knows that the Aborigines were in Australia and established a firm culture before Europeans took control of the island.

The Commonwealth of Australia is a functioning, stable, liberal democracy.
There is nothing wrong with or illiberal undemocratic with allowing a minority or group of people to continue their beliefs and traditional customs.

Yet despite any Aborigine nationalism accounts, the group was conquered by a foreign power. They are subject to the laws and rights imposed on them by their conquerers.

In opposition to the claim that traditional values (no matter what the cost in human life) must be preserved undoubtly, I present the inhumane, yet logical theory of Social Darwinism.

'Just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through "survival of the fittest", competition between individuals, groups, or nations drives social evolution in human societies." -Wikipedia, Charles Darwin.

Put simply humans must adapt and productively change to survive over time, and the ones who do it best, live.

So, not just in a lawful sense, but in a practical sense, the Aborigines shouldn't be allowed to conduct activities that interfere with anothers inalienable "right to live, liberty or property." (John Locke)

[demagogic_schizoid]

Yet despite any Aborigine nationalism accounts, the group was conquered by a foreign power. They are subject to the laws and rights imposed on them by their conquerers.

A white person today in Australia is not a conqueror. Theya are just an Australian citizen. Likewise, an Aborigine, as long as they are granted the same rights as any toher Australian citizen, is not part of a group ocnquered by a foreign power. Each one of them is an individual. As long as the laws are in place and enforced to make sure nobody is discriminated against on basis of ethnicity, then there is nothing to make an Aborigine any different from any other Australian. Most people in the world do not carry the baggage of their ancestors. A Celt today (see how ridiculous these racial classifications sound when put like that) doesn't normally identify themselves as a victim ofRoman conquest. Anglo-Saxons in Britain are not normally seen as an occupying power. Aborigines once settled in Australia don't forget. The best thing for everyone is to look forward and shape the future, not look back and be shaped by the past.

Also read my post on this thread on page 1, it's pretty unlikel that the way Aborigines live today bears any more relation to the way they lived before the white man arrived than our lives today resemblethe way our ancestors lived hundreds of years ago. There's a patronising eurocentric view that people like the aborigines or the indians of Latin America live more "traditional" lives than us - and this can be used either to hate them or to romanticise them - but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Architectonic]

Anglo-Saxons in Britain are not normally seen as an occupying power.

That is because Angles and Saxons have never been a majority... When considering history, you have to realize that culture/language is not the same as race/tribe...


The major question is what defines soverignty? The problem in many cases is that soverignty has been arbitrarily defined, due to historical actions. Rather than actively considering the role of the individual in the state.

[demagogic_schizoid]

they say race is a social construct. I find it hard to believe that this is absolutely true, but what is true is that it is often subjective. There is no way you could determine in britain whether or not anglo-saxons are a majority, we're all too mixed. to determine whether or not someone was of anglo-saxon descent today would have to be done so subjectively it would be worthless.

[Erratic]

they say race is a social construct. I find it hard to believe that this is absolutely true, but what is true is that it is often subjective. There is no way you could determine in britain whether or not anglo-saxons are a majority, we're all too mixed. to determine whether or not someone was of anglo-saxon descent today would have to be done so subjectively it would be worthless.

And that's why your analogy doesn't work. I honestly don't know what was the difference between the anglo-saxons and whomever conquered them (I'm hopeless with UK history) but still being resentful when they've all gotten together and can't even tell each other apart doesn't make any sense. This is definitely not the case in Australia, where the groups are definitely not mixed, therefore an "us vs. them" mentality can still be easily kept in place.

Whether race is a social construct or a biological/genetic/whatever one doesn't really matter here. There are two clearly defined groups, for whatever the reason, and that's not going to change just invalidating those reasons.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I agree to point although these groups are not 100% clearly defined. My point is how do you solve the problem? Are really going to calculate a cost to each individual descendant of an Aborigine caused by the conquest of Australia? Who are we going to make bear the cost? Will a rich Aborigine be compensated out of the pocket of a poor white? And how will this help bring the two communities closer together (I'm not saying you personally hold these views, I am just arguing against this view which does exist).

Ultimately it's an issue of multiculturalism versus integration. In Britain, we tried multiculturalism for years, and I fear it's caused many more problems than solutions. I'll link to an article by Trevor Phillips, a black man (well, one which society has construed to be black), the head of Britain's Commission for Racial Equality, and for years a champion of multiculturalism. But he turned against it.


My quarrel is not with those who like diversity. It is with those who want to make a fetish of our historical differences to the point where multiculturalism, as it is practised, becomes ridiculous, or worse still, a dangerous form of benign neglect and exclusion.

We need to be more radical and ambitious, not less. We need to pull the rug from under the extremists and remind people that we are all equally British, regardless of race and religion. Our claim for equality in an integrated society is founded on the certainty of our citizenship ? on what we have in common, not our differences.

I am not in favour of assimilation. Assimilation is the destruction of difference, an essential ingredient that enriches and strengthens our society. Rather, our aim is to better manage the tensions that naturally flow from aspects of difference, so that we can live alongside one another in a welcoming environment of increased understanding and mutual respect.

I want to see an integrated society where we are all equal, but free to be different; fundamentally a society in which our origins do not determine our destinies.

http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/connections/articles/04wi_whatnow.html

This might be idealistic. But so is an attempt to compensate the Aborigines at the expense of the white invader and to save their romaticised culture from being exterminated by the capitalist state. I personally think integrating the Aborigines into mainstream society (which of course can only work if we are prepared to enforce the laws which demand they have equal rights to anyone else) is much better for their long term future than attempts to compensate them which would ultimately just leave them as outsiders in Australian society, feeding off scraps from the table, trapped in poverty by being brought up to believe they are different from the prosperous nation around them, and being told it's social justice.