A Closed Path to the Open World
An Introspective Look to Expand the Horizon
I recently came across a post discussing a group of people called “The Nuruls”, and I thought I found it very fascinating. Essentially, they’re a group of people trying to lead a more liberal life while still preserving their conservative beliefs. At face value it doesn’t seem like there’s anything wrong with it; this is just the byproduct of globalization. We consume foreign contents/media, we buy foreign products, and we talk foreign language(s). The problem starts when you dig deeper into their behaviour.
The example used to highlight their problematic behaviour is their desire to participate in a non-normative activity while still actively criticizing said activity. Their religious upbringing forbids them from partaking in activities such as drinking alcohol and/or same-sex relationship, yet they still harbor desire to partake in one by creating loopholes for themselves. At best, this would only make them extremely hypocritical, but at worst, this dichotomy could highlight a deeper societal issue. To understand this problem, I believe it’s important we look back at our history, how we got here in the first place. So, let’s start from the beginning.
Adapt or Be Extinct: Survival’s Precursor
The word Neanderthals has long been used to describe something/someone as caveman-like, or cognitively-impaired. This notion originated from Marcellin Boule’s reconstruction of the “Old Man of La Chapelle” neanderthal fossil in 1911, in which he characterized neanderthals to be similar to that of a large ape. Further examination of the fossil in the 1950s proved the previous characterization of neanderthals to be inaccurate, due to physical deformities such as osteoarthritis found during the reconstruction. The re-examination also found that physical features of neanderthals are more similar with modern humans. Numerous studies have since tried to debunk the notion that neanderthals are synonymous with being “less intelligent”. They are known to be skilled hunters, they crafted tools, used fire, and have an artistic sense.
Neanderthals are known to inhabit Europe from around 400.000 years ago, until they mysteriously went extinct around 50.000 years ago. Their extinction coincides with the arrival of Homo sapiens in mainland Europe around 45.000 years ago. Genetic analysis showed that H. neanderthals and H. sapiens cohabited and interbred with each other, though the nature of this cohabitation is still unknown. There is also no clear consensus as to how H. neanderthals went extinct, but there have been several theories.
One of the proposed theories is that H. sapiens managed to develop a better culture than H. neanderthals. Anatomical comparison showed that H. neanderthals had some physical superiority over H. sapiens. They are stronger, have greater lung capacity, can adapt to cold weather better, and have bigger brain size than their counterparts. Though a bigger brain doesn’t necessarily equate to them being smarter, this difference in brain shape is what allowed H. sapiens to develop a better culture. The ability to interpret and draw recognizable imagery contributes to H. sapiens having better hand-eye coordination, thus enabling them to create more sophisticated culture, one with better tools, better hunting techniques, and with larger territory. Regardless of how they disappeared, one thing remains true: we Homo sapiens survived, while they Homo neanderthals do not.
Early modern humans transitioned from being a hunter-gatherer into farming around 12.000 years ago, a period referred to as “Agricultural Revolution”. This revolution took place in a region that spans from Northern Egypt to South-east Turkey, nicknamed “Fertile Crescent”. A prevailing theory to the cause of this revolution is the rising population number and increase in food demand. The revolution also coincides with the end of the last ice age, which would make conditions more suitable for farming, allowing them to look for greener pastures. This led Fertile Crescent to be referred as “The cradle of civilization”.
The (un)Pleasant Pastures: Is The Grass Always Greener?
The root of ethnic prejudice can be traced all the way back to the Ancient World, around 3.000 years ago. The Greeks distinguished themselves from the Barbarians (non-Greeks, from the Greek word barbaros, meaning foreigner) through their way of living. They viewed themselves as being civilized, and Barbarians as otherwise. A Barbarian could theoretically become Greek through learning their culture and education, but they may never partake in any ‘Greekness’ as their nature does not reflect the highest level of Greek culture and virtue. In writing the treatise Constitution of Lacedaemonians, Greek historian Xenophon argues for the practice of xenelasia (expulsion of foreigners) to protect the local community’s identity. According to Plutarch, Lycurgus — a Spartan lawgiver — exercises xenelasia to prevent foreign doctrine from interfering with the status quo.
In his book Racism: A Short History, George Fredricksen argues that for an ethnic prejudice to be defined as racism, it requires an inherent view that somehow an ethnicity/race is intrinsically superior or inferior to the other. He theorized that racism is born from two things: difference and power. The sense of difference — Us versus Them mentality that is unbridgeable — provides a rational to treat Them in an unjust manner using their power that such treatment would be deemed cruel if it was done to their own kind. Prejudice of the Greeks towards the Barbarians thus cannot be defined as racism, as it lacks a view of hereditary inferiority from the Greeks. The attitude of the Greeks towards the Barbarians could perhaps be captured best through the Dying Gaul statue, in which it depicts a dying Barbarian warrior facing the futility of death in the hands of their conqueror.
The Line Between Ignorance and Bigotry
Globalization could be to us what the Agricultural Revolution was to our ancestors; an opportunity to live a better life in ways we couldn’t imagine before. The world has never been so smaller before, everything and everyone is more connected with each other, and we’re seeing cultural exchange at a rate of knots. Perhaps this is viewed as a threat to traditionalists, similar to how neanderthals were to Homo sapiens. It’s only natural for wanting to ensure their survival, and I do think that it’s a good fact they’re willing to engage with other cultures, though where they fall short is their application of said culture. This irreconcilable difference in values and virtues — likewise the Barbarians to the Greeks — are perhaps what separate Us with Them. It’s easy to dismiss The Nuruls as annoying, hypocritical pests. But it’s easier to dismiss them because their flawed way of thinking makes them “wrong”, and pointing out their hypocrisy makes us “right”. It’s easy to dismiss them rather than to understand their flaws, because pointing out their hypocrisy makes us feel “superior”, by eliminating one ignorance at a time and making the world a better place. But is the world a better place because of it? Or does it only create a bigger rift between Us and Them that it’s driving society into a head-on collision rather than actual harmony?
