Everywhere genocide is universally condemned. Ethnocide is rarely condemned and rarely seen as blameworthy. Quite often it is seen as morally praiseworthy (such can be the case in Christian evangelism).
Let me ask here: what is the difference between genocide and Ethnocide?
Might we say that it is never right to commit genocide? It constitutes the stripping of life from those of a particular race, culture, or nation.
Might we also say the same of ethnocide? It constitutes the stripping of the reasons for living from those of a particular race, culture or nation.
We might pause here and examine my claim that ethnocide is universally wrong. Don't we think that there are times and places where a culture should be put to death. What of the Ku Klux Klan? What of the Nazi's (the token genocide nation)? Are these cultures that good humans can allow to persist?
My response: have we not already claimed that genocide is wrong? Most would certainly say that racism is a moral flaw as well. I abhor genocide and racism both. But is it the political machine of Nazi Germany that we abhor, or the acts of genocide? Is it the structure of the Klan that we abhor, or the racism. Do we condemn culture or immorality in those cases?
Before anyone gets the silly idea of cultural stagnation in their heads, I do not suggest that we need to prevent a culture from changing. That is not only silly but impossible. All cultures change and adapt and that is as it should be. I think a quote from anthropologist Wade Davis may sum up a good perspective on the matter,
"Cultural survival is not about preservation, sequestering indigenous peoples in enclaves like some sort of zoological specimens. Change itself does note destroy a culture. All societies are constantly evolving. Indeed a culture survives when it has enough confidence in its past and enough say in its future to maintain its spirit and essence through all the changes it will inevitably undergo. "
Let's work with a few examples of cultural change which can be appropriate and even healthy. Suppose that a previously "Stone Age" culture invents bronze and begins to use it successfully in their culture. Is this change wrong or to be resisted? Certainly not by us Westerners (though it might be acceptable for that culture to resist the change).
Suppose however that a culture is coerced into speaking only English instead of their native tongue, suppose that a culture is forced into T-shirts and jeans instead of the traditional garb? In some cultures this would be fine. For some cultures, t-shirts or one more language among many would be suitable. However, for some cultures, this would be the death of that culture. This would be an example of ethnocide, even if it was unintentional.
What sorts of change to a culture are threatening, or what sorts of new introductions and change in a culture are morally unacceptable because they lead to ethnocide?
Simply: anything that threatens the foundations of a culture. Unfortunately, this is not always knowable, but we are obligated to know this before introduction happens. Thankfully, cultures tend to be highly resistant to change, highly resistant to cultural destruction if not coerced into accepting change (via civilization camps, bans on native tongues, or the destruction of the local environment by oil, rubber, or logging industries). Cultures will maintain their language if not forced to speak another one, will wear their traditional garb if they are not forced to wear other kinds, and will not adopt another religion if they are satisfied with their own.
The structure of this argument is this.
1. Ethnocide is wrong.
2. Cultural change is permissible when cultures choose to change themselves.
3. We are responsible for the introduction of products, ideas, or contacts that lead to the destruction of a culture.
In my next post, I will discuss whether or not Christian mission work commits us to ethnocide.
