Bizarre practices and customs in Africa

[Politesse]

“Twin babies, according to our belief, are not humans. They are seen as danger to the existence of the entire community because our ancestors told us that they have strange powers. We see them as gods among men. So at birth, the entire village is alerted that a threat and perhaps an evil has been born into the community.”

As Sam Harris put it-

In many ancient cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were sometimes slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. The Dyak women of Borneo would not even look at a suitor unless he came bearing a net full of human heads as a love offering. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called “Vakatoga” which required that a victim’s limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, captives from other tribes were often permitted to live for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. African tribes too numerous to name have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day.

I note that Harris did not apparently bother to research any of his charming imperialist anecdotes before publishing them.
It is essential to realize that such impossibly stupid misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what certain human beings think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them.

Which is not to say that mostly non-religious and scientifically savvy societies do not exhibit practices that appear strange and bizarre to other societies. But I would say that the more skeptical the society, the fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole, and individuals within them, exist. And we're still learning; if our species survives, we can hope that over time harmful, meaningless or counter-productive rituals will grow fewer and rarer.

Harm is subjective, though. And horror, and revulsion, and all the other symptoms of culture shock. All cultures decide on their own more or less arbitrary grounds when along the course of development the rights of a living human begin. Secularists in our society adore the practice of abortion for instance, and see it as a fundamental right of the mother to have one performed. Even within our time, this is controversial, but we are at least culturally conditioned to expect it. If you had never encountered the practice at all, and your much advanced culture of the future happened to place the perceived start of life earlier, ancient practices like the surgical partial birth abortion would be as horrifying (and lurid) to you as the cases of infanticide mentioned above. I realize it may be hard to think past one's biases on this one, but how would you react to hearing about late term abortion for the first time, if you and everyone you knew assumed life (and rights) to begin three months before birth? Had known this, from their perspective, for centuries as a "scientific fact"?

 

[rousseau]

Which is not to say that mostly non-religious and scientifically savvy societies do not exhibit practices that appear strange and bizarre to other societies. But I would say that the more skeptical the society, the fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole, and individuals within them, exist. And we're still learning; if our species survives, we can hope that over time harmful, meaningless or counter-productive rituals will grow fewer and rarer.

I'd generalize it to something like: with more skeptical societies, there are fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole in the name of superstition. Look at World War II. The beginning of scientific thought led to the bloodiest period in human history, and war hasn't even given a hint of slowing down since then. The side-effects of the enlightenment and scientific thought may have also arguably led to Global Warming.

And so I think this dichotomy between pre-secular, and post-secular societies is a false one. Sure there may be some small, transient social gains once secularism arises, but in the grand scheme of things scientific thought and technology just end up being further tools to be used for exploitation and material benefit.

Even some of what we call 'progress' today looks ethically benign, but really isn't, we've just normalized it as others have suggested.

But even there I wouldn't go as far as comparing and contrasting pre and post secular societies, I would simply make the claim that peoples nature is ultimately self-interested, and cultural norms tend to favour immediate material benefits, rather than things like long-term sustainability.

 

[bilby]

Which is not to say that mostly non-religious and scientifically savvy societies do not exhibit practices that appear strange and bizarre to other societies. But I would say that the more skeptical the society, the fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole, and individuals within them, exist. And we're still learning; if our species survives, we can hope that over time harmful, meaningless or counter-productive rituals will grow fewer and rarer.

I'd generalize it to something like: with more skeptical societies, there are fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole in the name of superstition. Look at World War II. The beginning of scientific thought led to the bloodiest period in human history, and war hasn't even given a hint of slowing down since then. ...

Wait, what??

War has practically vanished since then.



https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/178122/HSRP_Report_2013_140226_Web.pdf

http://www.bethanylacina.com/Lacinaetal_declinerisk.pdf

The number and size of wars has declined precipitously through the second half of the twentieth century, and the number of deaths due to warfare have declined even more sharply - the wars we have had have been less deadly.

Of course it remains to be seen whether this is a long term trend; But to date there's no indication that this unprecedentedly peaceful period of human history is about to end.

 

[rousseau]

Which is not to say that mostly non-religious and scientifically savvy societies do not exhibit practices that appear strange and bizarre to other societies. But I would say that the more skeptical the society, the fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole, and individuals within them, exist. And we're still learning; if our species survives, we can hope that over time harmful, meaningless or counter-productive rituals will grow fewer and rarer.

I'd generalize it to something like: with more skeptical societies, there are fewer practices truly harmful to the society as a whole in the name of superstition. Look at World War II. The beginning of scientific thought led to the bloodiest period in human history, and war hasn't even given a hint of slowing down since then. ...

Wait, what??

War has practically vanished since then.

View attachment 18248

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/178122/HSRP_Report_2013_140226_Web.pdf

http://www.bethanylacina.com/Lacinaetal_declinerisk.pdf

The number and size of wars has declined precipitously through the second half of the twentieth century, and the number of deaths due to warfare have declined even more sharply - the wars we have had have been less deadly.

Of course it remains to be seen whether this is a long term trend; But to date there's no indication that this unprecedentedly peaceful period of human history is about to end.

Fair. What I'm trying to say is that war hasn't given the slightest hint of stopping completely, rather than slowing down. And I think it's also pretty safe to say that any decline in violence has fuck all to do with secularism, and everything to do with abundant resources. There is less incentive to go to war these days because we've become so good at exploiting the environment for energy. Human rights and peaceful communities where peoples needs are met exist because we can feed those communities. But as we see this has an environmental cost.

Secularism then is a result not a cause, and it's not a moral silver bullet, it just exists in places where there is enough money to explain to people why religion is untrue.

 

[J842P]

I came across this article a few weeks ago:

The Secret Killings of Twins in Nigeria

And after following Al Jazeera for a while this type of thing pops up now and then. Strange and sad, but also interesting.

What are some other strange customs on the continent? And why do they happen?

Meh. Humans behave pretty damn strange nonmatter how you cut it. Now, I'm not some relativist who will try to defend this utter insanity, but what is strange is certainly relative.

 

[TSwizzle]

I remember watching a documentary about this several years ago but couldn't remember where it was or the name of it.

 Leblouh the practice of force feeding girls into obesity to make them more desirable for marriage. It was a brutal on the girls.

 

[rousseau]

Bizarre is a purely relative term.

We kill all kinds of people in our culture. Often for monetary gain. Technically a crime, sure, but so are these twin killings (indeed, they not even really be happening, but that is another question).

You ever think how weird it is to kill someone for a little piece of cotton with another dead guys' face on it? The dollar itself is meaningless. Just an object. Costs very little to produce. But, in that it represents an idea that is real and meaningful, it is real and meaningful. Money becomes real when we make it real by treating it as real in our social interactions.

Other cultures have different symbols. Arbitrary, sure, but almost all symbols, unless they are purely onomatopoetic, are arbitrary in form. It is social consensus that turns paper into "money", the kicking of a rubber ball into a "celebrity", a disobedient daughter into "dishonor", or a cool glance into "sorcery". And everyone's customs seem bizarre and hardly worth killing over, to someone with a different background... and without the cultural context to explain them. With that context, symbols and symbolic associations become as real as anything else, because they can predict human behavior, and behavior is certainly real.

Your comparison doesn't quite hold, although I get your point. Money is sort of an arbitrary symbol, but the criminal has a clear understanding of it's real material value and (sometimes) makes a rational calculation to obtain that value. To me a better example would be something like belief in Christianity. Jesus acts as a symbol for all sorts of things, but it's really mass delusion.

These twin killings are subtly different because the rationalizations are completely absurd. And I don't say absurd to highlight the 'barbarity' of pre-modern tribes, but instead the completely irrational nature of the purely uneducated mind. The justifications and behaviour aren't approached with any sense of empiricism, it's just 'I want this reality to be true therefore this is my rationalization'.

I would agree that the exact same thing happens in 'modern' economies, although the African example is so extreme that you can't help but notice the phenomenon. It's interesting because when you take that idea and place it in Canada or U.S., you see a lot more absurdity that we just take for granted.

Anyway, I don't know that I'm saying anything completely new here, but it's interesting to talk about.

 

[Politesse]

The rationalization always is absurd, though; social life is built on absurdities, many of which seem bizarre and upsetting to an outsider. All the more absurd if you don't know the history that led to their development. Like, paper money you can sort of track back through written history and get a sense of the intermediary stages that led to its development over a rather long history. To someone unaccustomed to the concept, the end version seems completely bizarre: you're telling me this piece of paper here is a suitable exchange for an entire house, or a human life, or fifteen years of labor? And this one just gets you a can of coke, because there's a different number written on it?

But it's not actually irrational, because as long as the central idea is conventionalized to the point of being customary and assumed, the form it takes doesn't need to be rational in order to be functionally effective. My students often find it bizarre when I point out that cowrie shells were formerly used as currency in West Africa, often in direct preference to gold dust. But the Malian/Songhay currency functioned, socially, pretty much exactly the same way paper money does.

 

[rousseau]

The rationalization always is absurd, though; social life is built on absurdities, many of which seem bizarre and upsetting to an outsider. All the more absurd if you don't know the history that led to their development. Like, paper money you can sort of track back through written history and get a sense of the intermediary stages that led to its development over a rather long history. To someone unaccustomed to the concept, the end version seems completely bizarre: you're telling me this piece of paper here is a suitable exchange for an entire house, or a human life, or fifteen years of labor? And this one just gets you a can of coke, because there's a different number written on it?

But it's not actually irrational, because as long as the central idea is conventionalized to the point of being customary and assumed, the form it takes doesn't need to be rational in order to be functionally effective. My students often find it bizarre when I point out that cowrie shells were formerly used as currency in West Africa, often in direct preference to gold dust. But the Malian/Songhay currency functioned, socially, pretty much exactly the same way paper money does.

That's fair. I guess the take-home might be that truth isn't and has never been very important to us.

 

[TSwizzle]

The rationalization always is absurd, though; social life is built on absurdities, many of which seem bizarre and upsetting to an outsider. All the more absurd if you don't know the history that led to their development. Like, paper money you can sort of track back through written history and get a sense of the intermediary stages that led to its development over a rather long history. To someone unaccustomed to the concept, the end version seems completely bizarre: you're telling me this piece of paper here is a suitable exchange for an entire house, or a human life, or fifteen years of labor? And this one just gets you a can of coke, because there's a different number written on it?

But it's not actually irrational, because as long as the central idea is conventionalized to the point of being customary and assumed, the form it takes doesn't need to be rational in order to be functionally effective. My students often find it bizarre when I point out that cowrie shells were formerly used as currency in West Africa, often in direct preference to gold dust. But the Malian/Songhay currency functioned, socially, pretty much exactly the same way paper money does.

Really ? What a load of navel gazing codswallop.

 

[lpetrich]

 Monday's Child

Monday's child is fair of face
Tuesday's child is full of grace
Wednesday's child is full of woe
Thursday's child has far to go,
Friday's child is loving and giving,
Saturday's child works hard for a living,
And the child that is born on the Sabbath day
Is bonny and blithe, and good and gay.

Seems rather arbitrary, but it's not much different from astrology. There are two very different traditions of astrology, the Western one and the Chinese one. Though astrology is big in India, Indian astrology is derived from Western astrology with the addition of the Moon's line of nodes. That's where its orbit intersects the Earth's, and its being near a node is what makes eclipses happen -- the Moon or the Earth will cast a shadow on the other one of the two.


As to the magical properties of albino people's body parts, I think that that's because albinism may seem weird.


Anthropologist Marvin Harris once wrote a book, "Sacred Cow, Abominable Pig". He proposes that the difference is what value the animals have when alive.

Domestic bovines have a lot of value when alive. They can carry loads and pull wagons and plows, and female ones can be milked. Furthermore, they eat grass, and thus do not compete with their masters for food. That makes killing and eating them during famines very shortsighted, and MH proposes that their sacredness was invented to keep them alive.

Pigs do not have any comparable value when alive. They are not very good as work animals, and female ones are not very convenient to milk. They also eat food much like what their masters eat. Furthermore, in semidesert climates, they can be an ecological nuisance, messing up water supplies by wallowing in them to cool off. MH proposes that it is not far from there to conclude that pigs are very vile animals.


BTW, I've seen an interesting theory for circumcision: that it was started in semidesert and desert areas because those are very sandy and dusty areas, and without circumcision, that sand and dust would get caught in men's penises.

 

[rousseau]

 Monday's Child

Monday's child is fair of face
Tuesday's child is full of grace
Wednesday's child is full of woe
Thursday's child has far to go,
Friday's child is loving and giving,
Saturday's child works hard for a living,
And the child that is born on the Sabbath day
Is bonny and blithe, and good and gay.

Seems rather arbitrary, but it's not much different from astrology. There are two very different traditions of astrology, the Western one and the Chinese one. Though astrology is big in India, Indian astrology is derived from Western astrology with the addition of the Moon's line of nodes. That's where its orbit intersects the Earth's, and its being near a node is what makes eclipses happen -- the Moon or the Earth will cast a shadow on the other one of the two.


As to the magical properties of albino people's body parts, I think that that's because albinism may seem weird.


Anthropologist Marvin Harris once wrote a book, "Sacred Cow, Abominable Pig". He proposes that the difference is what value the animals have when alive.

Domestic bovines have a lot of value when alive. They can carry loads and pull wagons and plows, and female ones can be milked. Furthermore, they eat grass, and thus do not compete with their masters for food. That makes killing and eating them during famines very shortsighted, and MH proposes that their sacredness was invented to keep them alive.

Pigs do not have any comparable value when alive. They are not very good as work animals, and female ones are not very convenient to milk. They also eat food much like what their masters eat. Furthermore, in semidesert climates, they can be an ecological nuisance, messing up water supplies by wallowing in them to cool off. MH proposes that it is not far from there to conclude that pigs are very vile animals.


BTW, I've seen an interesting theory for circumcision: that it was started in semidesert and desert areas because those are very sandy and dusty areas, and without circumcision, that sand and dust would get caught in men's penises.

An interesting question is 'why not just make an explicit rule to not eat cows, rather than calling them sacred'.

The impression I get is that the further back you go, sans science, the only explicable answer is that something like a cow is sacred. 'If this thing is sustaining my life, maybe it has a spiritual quality we should worship and respect, so as to not fall out of it's favour'. In the same way many indigenous cultures made sure they respected the spirits of the animals they killed to ensure successful hunts in the future.

In 2018 a lot of us have a secular, materialist bias that can't comprehend how these people would view the world. But assigning a spiritual essence to the natural environment is exactly how it worked, and in a lot of respects still does today.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In 2018 a lot of us have a secular, materialist bias that can't comprehend how these people would view the world. But assigning a spiritual essence to the natural environment is exactly how it worked, and in a lot of respects still does today.

Actually, having lived through the evolution of PC, this practice makes perfect sense to me.

PC started as an effort to stop unintentional insult through words that some people found weighted. It ended up giving petty people the power to hassle other talkers.

I imagine that at one time, the Cow was just that thing that was so, so very useful. While it was alive, milk, manure, blood, labor , after death: clothes from the skin, meat from the flesh, tools from bone, horn, sinew, etc. Someone, at some point, realized that the domesticated cow was THE perfect animal. Every single part could be used by the tribe. OBVIOUSLY the hand of God was apparent in the existence of the cow. Praise be to God, who loves us and gave us self-perpetuating steak machines.


Then, later, some dick had to ruin everything and ask, "If the cow is so holy, why do we cut its throat and string it up like so much meat? Thus, worship for God giving us the perfect rural accessory prohibits the use of the perfect accessory...

 

[rousseau]

In 2018 a lot of us have a secular, materialist bias that can't comprehend how these people would view the world. But assigning a spiritual essence to the natural environment is exactly how it worked, and in a lot of respects still does today.

Actually, having lived through the evolution of PC, this practice makes perfect sense to me.

PC started as an effort to stop unintentional insult through words that some people found weighted. It ended up giving petty people the power to hassle other talkers.

I imagine that at one time, the Cow was just that thing that was so, so very useful. While it was alive, milk, manure, blood, labor , after death: clothes from the skin, meat from the flesh, tools from bone, horn, sinew, etc. Someone, at some point, realized that the domesticated cow was THE perfect animal. Every single part could be used by the tribe. OBVIOUSLY the hand of God was apparent in the existence of the cow. Praise be to God, who loves us and gave us self-perpetuating steak machines.


Then, later, some dick had to ruin everything and ask, "If the cow is so holy, why do we cut its throat and string it up like so much meat? Thus, worship for God giving us the perfect rural accessory prohibits the use of the perfect accessory...

It's amazing how simple and common it is.

Someone stands on their deck at the edge of a forest on a sunny day. How could something so beautiful not come from the hand of God. They intuitively accept the explanation because, honestly, it sounds a lot nicer than 'everything is arbitrary, people are cruel, and eventually you're going to be dead for eternity'.

The materialist answer is far more interesting and meaningful to me, but for a lot of people it just represents a black hole, and these days I get that.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, that's it, restricted to Africa. Not.

Replacing one form of lazy thinking, religious, with another, materialist, doesn't really move things forward.

I was caught by a comment a physicist made that Einstein wanted a balanced solution, a beautiful solution, so he invented the cosmological constant to accomplish that in his original work. Now we use it to explain dark matter and current expansive acceleration based on verifiable standard 'candle'. I guess lazy is the way.

Yeah, and in about 140 years we've come to "understand' the evolution of the universe. Wha?

Has anybody looked around and notices we still occupy a planet somewhere in a rather ordinary solar system in an nondescript galaxy, in a group of galaxies somewhere out about two thirds of the way from what we can see with telescopes.*

* ^{_{hey, if they can do it so can I.}}

 

[rousseau]

In fairness I was really more interested in the various extremely superstitious practices in Africa, than highlighting how great or free from this type of thinking we are.

Thread titles are a bitch.

 

[Politesse]

In fairness I was really more interested in the various extremely superstitious practices in Africa, than highlighting how great or free from this type of thinking we are.

Thread titles are a bitch.

Eh, thread titles are fun. Colonialism's a bitch.

 

[TSwizzle]

From Cameroon;

Nearly a quarter of the women in Cameroon, a Central African nation of 23 million, have endured some form of breast ironing. Counterintuitive though it may seem, the women performing this painful procedure on young girls are trying to protect them. Girls in Cameroon are reaching puberty earlier and marrying later—and many mothers want to make sure their daughters don’t get pregnant and miss out on opportunities to go to school and get jobs. Their hope is that breast flattening will help delay the appearance of these visible markers of maturity—and prevent men from making sexual advances or raping the girls.

Newsweek

It doesn't seem to be a superstitious practice, more of a practical solution to ward off unwanted attention from men.

 

[Politesse]

I hope it works. It is looking like civil war is very much on the horizon in Cameroon, and its never the ones who start wars who suffer the most from them.

 

[steve_bank]

It was widely resorted in the 90s that African shamen convinced people sex with virgins cured AIDS.