Finished. I am so, so......weird.
So. About missionary activity, motivation, intent, and results. I speak as one who has not studied psychology or philosophy enough to have that special Learned Need to Label, but as a habitual observer of human behavior and my own mind; one whose ideology from birth was meant to be that of the non-denominational (though it might almost be called Calvinist) Christian - TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints...summing up briefly the beliefs I am meant to hold (see Wikipedia's explanation for more detail); one who does not believe, but seeks to understand the nature - the origin, perhaps - of religious or philosophical belief in any given individual; and one who is, ultimately, exceedingly pragmatic AND exceedingly loath to cast more blame than is both accurate and necessary. So this may be a little...odd.
A note: I will generally be referring to Christian missionaries.
First off, I don't think anyone could sanely claim that what is broadly termed missionary work has in the turbulent course of history helped more than damaged the collective well-being of humanity. This - I think pretty clearly - is mostly due to the fact that religion was and is such an integral part of the cultures and societies that are "home" to most missionaries. In ignorance, in "a total pig-headed inability to face the facts" perhaps, but probably more often simply in ingrained assumptions and prejudices, it seems missionaries rarely bother to separate cultural conventions from behavioral characteristics actually dictated by the beliefs they claim to hold. Mass hypocrisy ensues from the defensive, possibly semi-conscious refusal to sacrifice comfortable (though often irrational and baseless) norms while retaining one's faith. This is understandable in the way that many egregious crimes are understandable: bringing a sympathy that does not quell or even lessen the disgust and horror elicited by what was done.
However, I must cede that many (if not most) missionaries are, by means of a socially reinforced but originally inherent blindness, convinced that *every* intention they have re. their cultural-religious propagation is noble, sacred, and for the betterment of mankind. I think that even a keenly intelligent individual, if possessed of a weak will, can achieve this phenomenally astounding level of....all-obscuring egomaniacal self-deception, for lack of a better term.
I would assert that the separation of belief from culture - a careful and intentional separation - is absolutely necessary for effective propagation of said belief, as I'm sure (I actually know) some missionaries are aware. For any who are familiar with the New Testament of the Bible, I cite Paul (the apostle) as a prime (and primary) example. As this isn't a formal essay and I really can't be bothered, I'm not going to explain thoroughly. Read the book of Acts and pretty much the rest of the New Testament if you're desperately curious. This whole idea, though, seems pretty much like Common Sense to me...first become familiar with the history and idiosyncrasies of the place and people you hope to witness to, and it stands to reason you'll have a better chance at communicating your Truth in a much more comprehensible and appealing manner, does it not? Not only become familiar with it, though, but adopt the culture (sincerely, or we're falling back on hypocrisy again) and become as much assimilated as the core of your faith allows. How else could you ever expect someone from that society to trust you? And then we have the lovely side affect of not damaging the people you are supposed to be saving. I am trying not to be (too) sarcastic; but it just seems so SIMPLE.
Granted, there are some people - missionaries - out there who have come to the same conclusions, and while I may not believe what they believe and thusly don't think it's necessary for them to be missionaries at all, I cannot help but admire them; in such sacrifice there is a degree of courage rarely seen. And even if I thought their lives wasted, I don't think I could condemn them for wasting others'.
There are, of course, innumerable chains of cause-and-effect leading to the devastating results of less intrepid and less intelligent missionary work. The blame is widespread (though perhaps not the guilt): every egotistical, selfish, stubborn-ignorant action of every person contributing.
...Well that's cheery. Am I a blithering idiot?
A note: I will generally be referring to Christian missionaries.
First off, I don't think anyone could sanely claim that what is broadly termed missionary work has in the turbulent course of history helped more than damaged the collective well-being of humanity. This - I think pretty clearly - is mostly due to the fact that religion was and is such an integral part of the cultures and societies that are "home" to most missionaries. In ignorance, in "a total pig-headed inability to face the facts" perhaps, but probably more often simply in ingrained assumptions and prejudices, it seems missionaries rarely bother to separate cultural conventions from behavioral characteristics actually dictated by the beliefs they claim to hold. Mass hypocrisy ensues from the defensive, possibly semi-conscious refusal to sacrifice comfortable (though often irrational and baseless) norms while retaining one's faith. This is understandable in the way that many egregious crimes are understandable: bringing a sympathy that does not quell or even lessen the disgust and horror elicited by what was done.
However, I must cede that many (if not most) missionaries are, by means of a socially reinforced but originally inherent blindness, convinced that *every* intention they have re. their cultural-religious propagation is noble, sacred, and for the betterment of mankind. I think that even a keenly intelligent individual, if possessed of a weak will, can achieve this phenomenally astounding level of....all-obscuring egomaniacal self-deception, for lack of a better term.
I would assert that the separation of belief from culture - a careful and intentional separation - is absolutely necessary for effective propagation of said belief, as I'm sure (I actually know) some missionaries are aware. For any who are familiar with the New Testament of the Bible, I cite Paul (the apostle) as a prime (and primary) example. As this isn't a formal essay and I really can't be bothered, I'm not going to explain thoroughly. Read the book of Acts and pretty much the rest of the New Testament if you're desperately curious. This whole idea, though, seems pretty much like Common Sense to me...first become familiar with the history and idiosyncrasies of the place and people you hope to witness to, and it stands to reason you'll have a better chance at communicating your Truth in a much more comprehensible and appealing manner, does it not? Not only become familiar with it, though, but adopt the culture (sincerely, or we're falling back on hypocrisy again) and become as much assimilated as the core of your faith allows. How else could you ever expect someone from that society to trust you? And then we have the lovely side affect of not damaging the people you are supposed to be saving. I am trying not to be (too) sarcastic; but it just seems so SIMPLE.
Granted, there are some people - missionaries - out there who have come to the same conclusions, and while I may not believe what they believe and thusly don't think it's necessary for them to be missionaries at all, I cannot help but admire them; in such sacrifice there is a degree of courage rarely seen. And even if I thought their lives wasted, I don't think I could condemn them for wasting others'.
There are, of course, innumerable chains of cause-and-effect leading to the devastating results of less intrepid and less intelligent missionary work. The blame is widespread (though perhaps not the guilt): every egotistical, selfish, stubborn-ignorant action of every person contributing.
...Well that's cheery. Am I a blithering idiot?