Contrary to the perspective assumed by optimistic social-rights advocates of the 21st Century, modernity is synonymous with the distinguishing of the “other” and their eventual dehumanization, whether manifested in lesser—yet nonetheless atrocious—systems of oppression such as enslavement, or in the climatic form of genocidal massacres. As French philosopher Michel de Montaigne summarized in his allegorical essay “Of Cannibals,” demonization of the other runs rampant in early modernity. According to Montaigne, the Tupinambá's (an indigenous group of Brazil) practice of eating deceased ancestors is one almost synonymous to that of burying or cremating the dead, only expressed through a different cultural perspective. He added that torturing live prisoners of war, as was common practice in then war-torn France, was much more cruel than honoring the dead through cannibalism. Ethnocentrism blinded, as it still does, a global audience from recognizing the possible savagery in their own practices while highlighting it in that of the other. Thus, in order to begin protecting the rights of farm workers (an inherently vulnerable group), humans must adopt perspectives based on cultural relativism; in order to do so, one must first understand its opposite in ethnocentrism and how it works.
Ethnocentrism on the part of the majority can falsely justify the subjugation of the other. Cannibalism was considered sinful to a European audience, regardless of the intent. Likewise, Huguenot practices of the 1500’s seemed ludicrous to a Catholic-French majority. In both cases, the stark difference in cultures—differences fabricated as barbarous and stretched to create disparity—“justified” the Encomienda System and one of history’s worst mass genocides (manifested in the French Wars of Religion and on Saint Bartholomew’s Day), respectively. Yet, Montaigne defines barbarism as that which is difficult to comprehend against the criteria of the judging group. Thus, barbarism, and inherently the justification for the maltreatment of differentiated peoples/cultural groups, are irrevocably personally defined.
The personal traits of defining barbarism may stem from religion. Since most major world religions, especially Catholicism (the supposed “universal” religion), differentiate believers from non-believers, they allow for the othering of non-believers. This assumption of the superiority of a culture/religion allows its devout to impose their practices on peripheral groups for the supposed betterment of humanity. Yet, such tactics can, have been, and are continuously misconstrued to enforce other motives. As Montesinos dictated in his sermon, the Encomienda System was not one imposed for the benefit of the natives but rather for Spain and the conquistadores. The Reconocimiento was incomprehensible to a non-Spanish speaking audience; for the same reason, conversion to the faith was an impossible task. In turn, as Dipp demonstrates, the Reconocimiento’s true purpose was to “justify” the enslavement of an otherwise docile peoples. The Spanish laws conveniently overlooked central Catholic tenants on equality of the common man. Thus, conquistadores over-worked and afterward burned alive the native populations they encountered with little to no true reprimanding, except from the revolutionary axis lead by De Las Casas which amounted to no true change in the early-modern era.
Religion only diminished as a justification for othering groups after the end of early modernity, namely the Thirty Years War and the start of King Louis XIV’s reign. Sadly, othering continues to be an appalling byproduct of the human condition to associate oneself with a community. It remains most prevalent in Latin-America, where racial/ethno-cultural boundary lines still exist from the early-modern era. One such case would be in Colombia, which from 1964 to 2016 was engulfed in a civil war. (Tensions are again rising between the government and resurging Colombian guerillas.) All men 18 and up were (and are still) required to serve as a part of the government’s military for two years, although urban middle-class civilians almost always buy their certification of service. Said citizens tend to be of European descent. Black and indigenous-descent citizens often populate farmland as a result of the economic-racial divide from the centuries of the encomienda, and as low-income citizens, they were often the ones picked up in military trucks to fight a battle they would otherwise be uninvolved in along the rural areas of Colombia.
From my grandfather’s stories, I know Colombia’s most important crop is coffee and how, as aforementioned, most of its farmers, like my grandfather, are of indigenous descent. When presented against ethnocentric standards, indigenous farming communities are subjugated to a list of disparities, as is all too typical of the modern era. Said oppression leads to civil unrest and the current revival of FARC and other guerilla groups. Thus, cultural relativism can help diminish long term unrest and violence between/directed at farm workers by the majority.
I think the best way to employ a culturally relativistic perspective on a global scale is through education. Most people do not know about the unrest farm workers experience daily as a result of maltreatment, both in the United States and abroad. By teaching the masses, say through PSA's or general education courses, one can demonstrate the flaws of ethnocentrism and in turn, create more socially conscious consumers. As the Coalition of Immokalee Workers dictate, the only balance on major industrial plants which maltreat farm workers is the consumer; no sales results in change. Thus, I urge people to educate others, as I hope this paper does its readers, to instigate change on a mass scale. Every change in perspective counts, including your own.
References:
1. Montaigne, Michel de. Twenty-Nine Essays. Edited by Donald Murdoch Frame, The
Franklin Library, 1982.
2. Dipp, Hugo Tolentino. Raza e Historia En Santo Domingo. Editora de la universidad
autonoma de Santo Domingo, 1974.
