Basic anthropology: The family is the basis for society.
In most countries, before modernity, it was the family who cared for the sick, the old, the young, and the pregnant.
When war, famine, or poverty leads to migration, it is the family ties that suffer: which is why the Philippines, where ten percent of folks move overseas ( permanently or temporarily) for jobs, it is the children who are at risk. When people work overseas to support their family, usually the children are cared for by grandparents or extended family in the home town. This is a problem in many poorer countries where opportunities for decent wages are limited.
This is the result of a philosophy of capitalism, where efficiency and low wages encourage migration, either to cities or to other countries so factories etc. will have cheap labor, and rich women with careers will have cheap caregivers to take care of their kids. Never mind that the caregivers have to leave their kids at home to be cared for by grandmom.
In Africa and in parts of Asia, colonial powers implemented policies to exploit local labor... villagers saw how men had to work in the mines or plantations to support their family: a deliberate policy by the colonial government. But few liberals in the west saw this as a problem.
when fathers (and sometimes mothers) were forced to work for wages, often far from their traditional villages, the extended family was affected: without the extended family nearby, there was literally no one they could trust in times of trouble, since often co workers were from other communities.
all of this weakened the lines of trust and community standards that supported the social fabric of village life.
But if traditional mores were still alive albeit weakened in villages, in cities is was almost non existant. This was especially true in places where men were hired but lives in dormatories and could not bring family with them, (e.g. South African mines, or todays' OFW in the Middle East). So the workers ended up isolated.
Women, often hired as caregivers, were a bit better if the family they worked for gave them support, but often they too were overworked and left without emotional support, leading to run away workers living in the grey economy (illegally) or even suicide to escape the abuse.
We missionaries tried to keep the damage to a minimum by educating and providing medical care in rural areas, but in cities, the family destruction by economic policies and the loss of extended family ties was horrific: millions of children became street kids, vulnerable to sexual abuse and crime.
Sigh.
The Protestant churches (especially those who preached the prosperity gospel) did help in cities: because the lines of trust now could be extended to fellow church members and individuals were encouraged to outreach to their neighbors and preach a gospel that included strict moral standards and taught that if you lived a moral life you could become prosperous.
of course, it is not just the Christian churches doing this: one reason for the upsurge of Islamic fundamentalism is because people need structure and rules in times of chaos. Buddhist, Hindu, and Confucian outreaches do the same thing in Asian countries.
Societies change, and modernity and adjustment from village life to city life causes harm, but when the alternative is rural poverty and starvation, you can see that in the long run the evolution from rural to city life helps people.
But what about the family?
If you notice, it is the churches (and mosques, and temples etc.) who are encouraging the family: either the natural family or for the isolated workers in the cities, the ties of trust to fellow church members.
Something that is rarely discussed by western intellectuals, who see the family as a tyranical patriarchy that must be destroyed.
yet without family, you get literal chaos and anarchy and drugs and crime and unrest and young men who see no hope so turn to terrorism.
One would expect that western countries would implement policies that encourage countries to implement policies that support family and community ties.
But instead, the Biden administration and the rich western countries are promoting family destruction under the guise of gay rights, something that Pope Francis has called cultural imperialism.
Old fashioned imperialism merely exploited people to work, destroyed the environment, and confisticated land that was farmed by local families to make plantations to enrich western owners.
But modern cultural imperialism seeks to impose a western individualism that isn't even accepted among Americans but it is the religion of the woke: That sexual hedonism and lifestyles that see material goodies is the aim of life, so that self control and taking responsibility is ridiculed.
So now, it is in the name of "human rights" that rich western countries are promoting so called gay friendly policies that will destroy the family in poor countries:
But without a family, in the rich west you end up with people on welfare. In poor countries, you end up with anarchy, drugs, and crime.
And poorer countries ignore their policies at their own peril because if they don't implement these policies, the west will withhold funding for development.
From CFAM:
Only 61 out of 194 countries voted in favor of a new strategy of the World Health Organization to combat HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases that was backed by the Biden administration and other Western delegations.
This came in a frantic late night session on the final day of the World Health Assembly last Saturday.
why are these controversial things always pushed late at night on weekends? maybe so no one will notice what is going on?
Thirty countries abstained and ninety chose not to cast a vote at all because of “non-consensual” language about homosexuality, transgenderism, comprehensive sexuality education, and sexual autonomy for children.
translation: encouraging underage teenagers that it's okay to have sex, which makes them vulnerable to teachers and sexual predators.
Among these were most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa where HIV/AIDS has the highest prevalence. The strategy was nonetheless adopted because many countries that object to the sexual policies of the West are also reliant on global assistance and therefore understand they cannot block the agenda overtly.
The new global strategy shuns abstinence, fidelity, and other risk-avoidance strategies, which aren’t mentioned even once.
other avoidance strategies include polygamy, which Zimbabwe encouraged to slow down the epidemic there.
In Malaysia, they instituted outreach to sex workers and high risk folks but also promoted the idea that such behavior was not to be accepted by the general publid.
It promotes a harm-reduction approach instead. This involves providing expensive drugs and prophylactics to enable sexually promiscuous individuals, men who have sex with men, and others who engage in high-risk behaviors to continue to do so.
We see this in the USA, where if you even hint that a gay man who has promiscuous sex with a dozen people a week is doing something harmful and maybe wrong, so shut up...
And in countries where sex tourism is seducing young people into unhealthy lifestyles, a lot of countries see this as a western way to exploit their children, in the same way that colonialism (western powers) and neo colonialism (multinationa corporations and China) exploited their children and led to the families being destroyed.
........
No comments:
Post a Comment