9 convicted in a honour-killing of an 18 year old girl.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3

jastayme3 12/9/2006 5:14:51 PM

What I always found odd is the predilection for killing rape victims.
If they killed the perpetrator I would simply call it frontier
justice-easily understood, though hardly a good base for society.

I read about that sort of thing in James Bowman's "A History of Honor".
There was one incident where a girl was gang-raped as a punishment for
being raped-despite the fact that the local Imam had agreed she was
innocent according to the Koran and asked that she be spared. A little
different from the "open doors for ladies, keep a stif upper lip, never
show emotion, never panic in battle, kind to civilians and
respect your foe so long as he is worthy of respect" code of honor most
of us are fammiliar with.

And yes I am perfectly aware that killing the perpetrator would probably cause a blood feud. As that means they are putting fear into the scales against dishonor one might wonder what they are making a fuss about. They have already compromised themselves. One can understand prudance-but in that case they might do the world a favor of being quiet about their honor.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 1/1/2007 3:05:31 PM

Quote Reply

jastayme3 1/1/2007 3:21:29 PM

I was reading in the Small Wars Journal a little. Tribal honor is not the same as the "gentleman's code", which is really a romanticized form of traditional morality melded with atavistic tribal memories. Tribal honor is like international honor-"prestige", an actual commodity that must be calculated to conduct business. Honor is like the currency exchange with a tribes honor being like it's currency. Thus the necessity of retaliation. In the West retaliation below the level of the nation-state is anger; a state retaliates to "maintain the deterrant". Amid tribes it is done for both reasons. This explains why blood money is accepted with such seeming callousness-they are taking the least they can afford and still keep "honor". Just as a nation might refrain from retaliating to avoid a global war. Or might refuse to do so if it considers it's "honor" overstrained(like Austria-Hungary refusing the equivalent of blood-money for the Archduke).
Thus the honor-killings are not necessarily inspired by religion but by surviavl instinct.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 1/1/2007 3:35:37 PM

I was reading in the Small Wars Journal a little. Tribal honor is
not the same as the "gentleman's code", which is really a romanticized
form of traditional morality melded with atavistic tribal memories.
Tribal honor is like international honor-"prestige", an actual
commodity that must be calculated to conduct business. Honor is like
the currency exchange with a tribes honor being like it's currency.
Thus the necessity of retaliation. In the West retaliation below the
level of the nation-state is anger; a state retaliates to "maintain the
deterrant". Amid tribes it is done for both reasons. This explains why
blood money is accepted with such seeming callousness-they are taking
the least they can afford and still keep "honor". Just as a nation
might refrain from retaliating to avoid a global war. Or might refuse
to do so if it considers it's "honor" overstrained(like Austria-Hungary
refusing the equivalent of blood-money for the Archduke).

Thus the honor-killings are not necessarily inspired by religion but by surviavl instinct.

"Thus the honor-killings are not necessarily inspired by religion but by surviaval instinct".

That is the point was not that she "sins" by being raped-that is a side issue, and the claim would probably be a rationalization held the more fanatically because they know it to be a lie. The point of honor-killings is that a compromised girl lowers the tribes credit rating. This is not to excuse-the custom certainly is barbarous. Literally so-the inordinate dominance of the tribe is a reaction to ineffective institutions, which is probably the definiton of barbarous. It is also barbarous in the metaphorical sense. But it is wise to examine the motives for a crime esp when they may be far different then is thought by many.

Quote Reply

jastayme3 1/22/2008 8:13:58 PM

I was reading in the Small Wars Journal a little. Tribal honor is
not the same as the "gentleman's code", which is really a romanticized
form of traditional morality melded with atavistic tribal memories.
Tribal honor is like international honor-"prestige", an actual
commodity that must be calculated to conduct business. Honor is like
the currency exchange with a tribes honor being like it's currency.
Thus the necessity of retaliation. In the West retaliation below the
level of the nation-state is anger; a state retaliates to "maintain the
deterrant". Amid tribes it is done for both reasons. This explains why
blood money is accepted with such seeming callousness-they are taking
the least they can afford and still keep "honor". Just as a nation
might refrain from retaliating to avoid a global war. Or might refuse
to do so if it considers it's "honor" overstrained(like Austria-Hungary
refusing the equivalent of blood-money for the Archduke).

Thus the honor-killings are not necessarily inspired by religion but by surviavl instinct.

Another way of describing Western Honor is as a combination of stoicism and chivalry. Which is why
Baghdad Bob seemed so normal to Arabs and so laughable in the West. He didn't fit the Western concept
even though bluster is in keeping in the Arab World at least among politicians(which are, of course, not necessarily a fair judge of a culture).
Basically Honor means "What would those whom I respect think I should do" and morality means, "What is
compatable to a standard held to be objective". Thus when two group's concept of honor differ that is to be
expected, but when concepts of morality differ one must assume(on the premise of objective standards) that one
is wrong.
I am re-reading James Bowman's Honor: a History. It is an interesting book and worth the read.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3