In a message dated 02-05-16 13:16:13 EDT, Jay Heuman wrote:

<< Criticism of a culture from beyond that culture is
 distasteful to me.  Yes, all Americans pride themselves in
 freedom of speech.  And there may be value in that for
 Americans.  But Chinese culture is not American culture.
 Certainly, American culture - such as it existed during the
 period of time during which the Chinese practiced foot
 binding - was filled with all sorts of horrors.  Something
 to consider? >>

I want to say at the outset that *I" find distasteful the practice of
dissecting someone's posts and alternating quotations with comments.  But I
don't know how else to respond to the recent Heumanistic messages.  As you
can see, I waited several days to send this, considering it carefully.  I
hope no one will construe it as rancorous, but I do think some of Jay's
points in dissecting my message deserve response.

It's interesting, to appropriate your frequent comment, that you would appeal
to something as subjective as "taste" in determining whether or not something
is a valid topic for criticism.  I think you can carry "peer review" too far,
i.e., privileging insiders the sole right to have an opinion.  (E.g., should
police brutality be evaluated only by policemen, on the grounds that those
outside the police community or subculture are not qualified to render a
judgment?)  If we are talking about writing history or preparing museum
exhibits, I agree that dispassionate, non-judgmental historical scholarship
should prevail.  However, some would argue that objectivity is a lie (clearly
it's at least difficult), that since any museum exhibition is selective in
the choice of artifacts and viewpoint, every exhibition inevitably carries
the baggage of curatorial bias.  Taken to its logical conclusion, one might
argue (and some do) that only insiders are qualified to investigate, write
about, or curate exhibits about, let alone judge or criticize, a culture and
its past.  Continuing that assumption into that part of one's cultural past
where some kind of break or discontinuity occurs and the past becomes a
"foreign country" or a different culture or subculture, one might argue that
no one alive is qualified to investigate, let alone critique or evaluate,
anything beyond one's immediate cultural situation, temporally,
geographically, or anything-ly else.  Then comes the counter-argument that no
one within a culture is qualified to study, curate, analyze, or critique that
culture due to an inherent lack of objectivity and perspective, and we soon
find that history, cultural analysis, and curating cultural history
exhibitions are impossible.  And cultural criticism, from within or without,
becomes not only distasteful but futile.  As an historian bent on
self-preservation, I reject all those arguments.

<< And I think you are ignoring the countless immoralities and
inferiorities of Western civilization.  That anyone can use
the word 'civilization' to describe anything human is
insulting.  Civilization assumes civility.  To civilize
means to bring out of a primitive state into a state of
technically advanced and rationally ordered stage of
cultural development.  While Western civilization has
"advanced" or "progressed" technically, the rationalism
and - to jump ahead (to your next paragraph) - the
humanistic values are doubtful. >>

Whence came this tangent?  You'll have to explain that "insulting" part, Jay.
 What is insulting about using "civilization" to describe human institutions?
 Insulting to whom?  That's bizarre.  I thought civilization was an
exclusively human activity.  We speak of Egyptian civilization, Aztec
civilization, etc.: why can't we use the term "Western civilization," as many
writers have done?  So you don't think Western civilization has progressed
since the days of, say, barbarian tribes?  This seems like a "glass half
empty" position.

<< Consider the numerous wrong-doings - from political
corruption, to actual (or economic, education, etc.)
slavery, to wars over 'resources' as varied as land, oil and
ideologies.  Is any of that rational?  If you answer 'yes',
and can demonstrate why, you're many steps ahead of the
Existentialists not to mention all other philosophers who
have dealt with the heady topic of 'good versus evil'! >>

Yes, Western civilization has a long way to go before it reaches Utopia.  So
what?  I doubt that Western society--or any other--can ever achieve
perfection because it's full of inherently flawed humans.  An innate,
infinite capacity to screw things up seems to be part of the human condition.
 We've still come a long way from where we started.  I agree that it's
important to put our own house in order.  No argument there.  It seems to me,
however, that repairing the flaws of Western civilization unilaterally is
beyond the capabilities of most of us.  But the very outrage which you
express and your ability to discern the flaws in Western society are
conditioned and made possible by the development of Western civilization and
the values which it espouses--or claims to espouse, if you prefer.  That
American slavery was ever eliminated is a consequence of Western
philosophical ideals, so I wouldn't be too quick to knock it.  Not so
incidentally, you seem to be a critic of slavery, which was a characteristic
of numerous past cultures; if it's OK to criticize slavery, why not
foot-binding as well?

<< I find it interesting that you put "more or less" in
parentheses. >>

The point of the parenthetical phrase was to acknowledge our inadequacies and
underachievement.  I thought that was pretty obvious.  It was inserted
deliberately, to demonstrate that I know we fall far short of perfection.  I
thought it would be a sufficient clue to indicate that I don't consider
Western "civilization" or "culture" a perfect, finished project.  Apparently
I was being too subtle.  But as I just said, we have a long way to go.

<< 'Good' is subjective, as is 'bad'.  What you view as good,
others may view as bad.  What you view as bad, others may
view as good. >>

Thanks for that innovative insight.  Indeed, some cultures have considered
slavery good and even a natural condition.

<< I think it's quite a balancing act to condemn another
culture without reconciling one's past condemnable acts.
("Holier than thou" springs to mind.) >>

I am not condemning cultures.  I merely said I'm opposed to foot-binding.  I
consider it a hideous practice.  If it was the central defining feature of
the culture, then I suppose that would be tantamount to condemning the
culture.  But was it central?  You tell us; you're the expert.  I have no
problem with the aesthetic ideal of tiny feet.  I have a problem with
cheating (value judgment!) to achieve that goal if it causes pain and
disfigurement.  I think binding feet was a wildly excessive, drastic
extrapolation from a simple aesthetic ideal.  On the other hand (to mix
extremities), if all women whose feet were bound thought it was a really
swell idea, then I have much less of a problem with it.

But condemnable acts?  Moi?  Which of my condemnable acts do you have in
mind?  I speak for myself, with values derived from Western civilization, not
on behalf of the current state of that culture.  I am not responsible for my
culture's past, nor am I personally responsible for most of the flaws in my
culture's present which you seem to have in mind.  Holier than thou?  That's
a canard that deserves to be put to rest.  I think it is possible to analyze
and criticize the pros and cons of a practice or behavior in any culture
(theirs OR ours) without achieving personal perfection or needing to have my
own present culture or society perfected first.  I don't see why the fact
that my former president bombed an aspirin factory should prevent me from
denouncing the Taliban's treatment of women.  Or ancient foot-binding.

<< And so, I ask you: How many marriages broke apart in China
during the period when foot binding was common practice?
Did it not serve its purpose of keeping marriages together?
Of ensuring that husbands kept their wives, that  children
were cared for by their mothers?  That a wife's "golden
lotus" feet became an object of erotic worship by husbands
made wives desirable, yes? >>

Beats me.  Again, you're the expert.  You tell us.  But seriously, I would
never argue that there were no benefits.  I'm just saying it's a damned shame
somebody couldn't have dreamed up another way.

<< I'm not saying that disfiguring women's feet was a good
thing or a bad thing -- but it was what it was.  It worked
in that time and place.  And nobody on this list is in a
position to make a judgment. >>

Nor, it seems to me, are you in a position to say that it "worked".  How do
you know it worked?  Worked in what sense?  Preserving the family?  In this
country, slavery "worked" for a while.  So what?  Everything works--until it
stops working--or is stopped.  I find this a very strange justification.  As
you indicate, foot-binding was abandoned when it interfered with other
priorities.  By the way, when that occurred, did marriage and the family
collapse?

<< This is a false notion, that condemning a behavior is not
equated with condemning the person.  Typically, people
commit actions based on forethought . . . so, you are
condemning the person. >>

Where I come from, we have a saying, "Hate the sin but love the sinner."  I
think your notion is false--and absurd.  When we stop a child from beating up
his little sister and tell him it's wrong, are we condemning the child?  I
hope not.  Unfortunately, too many people in our society do condemn a person
for a single wrongful act (another flaw, in my opinion), so I assume that's
where you're coming from.  I suppose this boils down to your personal belief
system, but mine says that condemning (or merely criticizing) a behavior is
NOT synonymous with condemning the person or his/her culture.  If a
conquering nation (or tribe) annihilates the indigenous population because
they disapprove of its lifestyle, that indicates they condemn both the
practices and the people.  If, however, intruders try to convert the populace
to their religion, culture, customs, and lifestyle, regardless of how
arrogant that attitude may be, it suggests that they do not condemn the
people but instead assume they're worth saving.

<< When is it time to
repair the past (to whatever degree is possible) . . . and
then move forward? >>

I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything more futile than trying
to repair the past.  I don't have a time machine.  I certainly don't think we
can do anything about foot-binding, except discourage its revival.

<< But just as the Jewish people
and other victims of the Nazi Holocaust should receive
reparations, just as the Japanese people who were interned
during World War II deserve reparations, so too do
African-Americans who suffered during the much-too-long
period when slavery was the norm in this nation. >>

I don't mean to be facetious or tasteless, but in reference to the sense of
your sentence, I have to point out that the African Americans who suffered
during slavery are not in a position to receive reparations.  This is a very
sensitive subject, and I hate to voice an objection with which many people
will disagree fervently, but I think there's a big difference between
compensating people for direct property losses suffered as the result of
illegal or unconstitutional actions and compensating people for immeasurable
losses which their ancestors suffered under a morally reprehensible but
perfectly legal system.  Also, and this is where I think your argument is
inconsistent, it constitutes passing a judgment on another culture.  I would
contend that 19th-century Southern white culture is not the same culture we
have today.  (And "culture" is a very slippery term anyway--we have many
cultures and subcultures.)  I'm aware of the aguments for reparations, and
while some are persuasive, they don't seem to me totally convincing.  I hope
this comment doesn't provoke a major debate about reparations, but the
salient point for the purposes of this discussion is that the concept seems
to conflict with your insistence upon avoiding judgment of other cultures.

<< So, if you condemn officially-sanctioned slavery, do you
also condemn the contemporary economic and educational
equivalent? >>

What equivalent?  You're comparing apples and oranges...although comparison
is fine in my book.  You CAN compare apples and oranges, but you can't equate
them.  I don't believe there is a contemporary equivalent to slavery--except
the actual slavery that still exists in some parts of the world.  The
question is, can we condemn that--or must we keep silent because it's
promulgated by alien cultures whose practices we must respect at all costs?

<< ...The 'why' of foot binding is beyond the
comprehension of 21st century Americans. >>

I disagree.  You've already told us why, Jay, and I think we get it.  We can
even understand how respect for tradition and fear would prevent women from
rebelling against it.  This is not mysterious.  There are analogues in
Western history.  Even if we can't fully identify with acquiescing to a
brutal tradition, we can understand peer pressure.  I find it very
comprehensible.

<< As if Western values are all humanitarian.  Outrageous!
Have there been no examples, in your mind, of the
devaluation of humans in the Western hemisphere?  I can
think of several dozen right off that bat. >>

Yes, so can I.  We agree.  I never said all Western values are humanitarian.
Far from it.  I just say we've come a long way.  You're illogically
extrapolating from what I wrote, in effect trying to put words in my mouth.
If the problem is my use of the word "superior" (always in quotes), I happily
delete it from the argument.

<< To say, "I would not do that to my daughter today" is fine.
To say, "If I was there in China at that time I would not
have done that to my daughter" is ridiculous. >>

Of course.  Agreed.  But who said what you quote?  Not I.  If I had been in
China before 1911, I probably would have subscribed to the prevailing norms.
(But now I'm wondering--were there parents who refused to follow the
practice?  And what were the consequences?)  It's very easy to say I wouldn't
do it today, especially since it undoubtedly would be illegal in our deeply
flawed society.

<< If only I could view Western civilization as flawless.  But
being a responsible adult means accepting ALL that happened
in the past, the 'superior' and the 'inferior'.  I am,
simply amazed, that you can dismiss the sheer, overwhelming
number of inferior events in Western civilization, and how
much it pushes everyone down, down, down . . . >>

Nonsense.  I didn't say Western civilization is flawless.  You're trying to
put words in my mouth again.  I am amazed that you would jump to the
unwarranted conclusion that I "dismiss" "inferior" events.  This is a
careless reading of what I wrote.  I hope you don't read Chinese history as
carelessly.

 << > Should we be denouncing slavery but not footbinding (or
excessive
> body-piercing)?

The two are different.  It is apples and oranges.  No
comparison, really. >>

Just a pet peeve here.  The old "apples and oranges" cliche is another that
should be retired, as previously suggested.  You can in fact compare apples
and oranges in many ways.  The point of a comparison is to discern
similarities and differences.  You can definitely compare slavery and
foot-binding vis-a-vis their similarities and differences.  Both involve the
subjugation of some humans by others within a rigid system of tradition and
repression.  But I contend that it is no more unfair to criticize
foot-binding because it was part of a "distant" culture than it is to
criticize the system of slavery in 19th-century America.  Pre-1911 Chinese
culture is more distant from 21st-century urban American culture than
19th-century American, but the latter is still far beyond our experience.

Criticism, in the sense of negative evaluation, is always tricky, to be sure.
 To criticize is to expose oneself to charges of hypocrisy, unfairness,
throwing stones from glass houses, negativity, misunderstanding, being
uninformed, etc.  Some people like to say, if you can't say something nice,
don't say anything at all.  But it's one thing for a government to condemn
certain human rights abuses while tacitly permitting others, and another for
a private citizen to express criticism of a practice which harms or has
harmed others in the past.  As a veteran non-foot-binder, I'm totally
guilt-free on that score and see no conflict in being critical of the
practice, while simultaneously "understanding" it at some level,
acknowledging that it "was what it was" and that it may have performed some
useful function within the culture in which someone (or everyone) decided it
was a swell idea.  I can understand Charlemagne massacring pagans who were
too slow to convert to Christianity, or because he was just too tired or out
of sorts to take the trouble to do any converting on a particular day, but I
still can say it was heinous, regardless of his motives or justification or
his cultural milieu--and with no pangs of conscience, since I've never
personally massacred pagans.  I've belabored these points enough--you get the
idea.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).