Kenyan lawyer offers large herds of livestock for Malia Obama

[ApostateAbe]

A Kenyan lawyer has offered to pay the Obama family 50 cows, 70 sheep and 30 goats for 16-year-old Ms. Malia Obama's hand in marriage, claiming to be in love with her. The story made the western news today because it comes off as ridiculous to westerners, but "bride prices" (payment from the groom's family to the bride's family, opposite of dowry) is still a somewhat common and traditional though controversial practice in Kenya and other African nations. A bride price is standardized at five years of the groom's income. Not cheap! CNN did the math and found that the offered livestock is worth 90,000 USD.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/feat-malia-obama-kenyan-lawyer/index.html

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That seems like kind of a cheap price for a sitting President's daughter. Maybe for a state senator's kid that would be acceptable, but this guy is way undervaluing the product.

I get that you always want to lowball your opening offer and then start to haggle, but if the offer is embarrassingly low then respectable people won't want to do business with you at all. People pay Obama $90K for a frigging lunch meeting, so if you want one of his little girls, you either put your opening bid in the eight-figure range or you look to find a bride in your own damn price range.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Embarrassingly low price in the context of a sitting American president, though high price in the context of Kenya. At a GDP per capita of 1200 USD, it is difficult for even the wealthier Kenyans to compete.

A poster in another forum offered this interesting informative perspective on the matter.

Kenyan lawyer offers livestock to wed Obama's daughter: report

Look at the comments. I'm half Kenyan, half American, born in Kenya..and the comments are insulting to me. People have no respect.

The way the West disrespects our traditions is out of line. People calling him a pedophile is not right. People don't understand his motivations at all. It's not because he's after a young bride, or the family's money. He's after one thing only..the power.

Obama's name goes a long way in Kenya. Obama is revered in Kenya, you wouldn't believe. And Malia is considered an African princess. An actual, real life, in the flesh princess. As far as Africa is concerned, she is royalty. If a man was to marry her, and take her back to Africa, he would be a King. Simply. People would treat him like a King. He could easily be president, or hold any public office he chose. He'd be his tribal leader, the story would be passed down for generations upon generations. It's the stuff of folklore, to take the lost African King's daughter and assume the crown. He could start a new clan, maybe tribe. You would be the ancestors Africans so greatly regard. That is what he is attracted to..not much else. It's not everyday that an African princess is crowned. Don't get me wrong, there are in fact many African princesses, but she is THE African princess. Many African Kings with many daughters, both formally and informally, but the African man that marries Malia is THE African King, until he passes. Then his sons, and their sons..many African men will want this, once they figure it out. Some already have...

Also the issue of brideprice is symbolic. You don't just give your daughters to any man..the man has to have enough resources to take care of her. The brideprice is given to the father with the understanding that if the woman is dissatisfied with the marriage, she can always go back to her father's land and be taken cared of. Call it insurance.

In my own traditions you're not considered married unless you have paid a brideprice. A father isn't going to give you his blessing unless you can put down however much he sees fit. My mother was married by an African man and my mother's parents were convinced to accept a brideprice, though they didn't want to, as my father would have not been considered married without it.

In fact, Western men are thought poorly of because they don't demand a brideprice. It's disrespectful to the value of women to not offer a brideprice. But, it's known it is not their way..so we don't resort to jokes and insults.

Malia really needs to decide if she wants to be Africa's queen or not. Or if she passes the crown up, her smaller sister. Instead she's going to music festivals? Men are at war for her hand, and she's busy going to concerts? Lol, I guess that's what kids do, and she doesn't realize just how important she is to Africa. There are millions of men just realizing how important she is and you can bet there will be millions of African men coming for her. I would know lol..

Does the African American princess want to be the African queen? Would you, in that situation?

Hopefully she gets married soon and the madness can be nipped in the bud. This is just the beginning, however...and if she passes the crown up, her little sister will be next on the block. It's going to be an interesting 10 years for Africa.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, he's talking about men going to war for a woman and treating them as a piece of property that needs to be taken care of like a fancy lamp as a good thing, but it's other people who are being disrespectful of the culture?

 

[ApostateAbe]

So, he's talking about men going to war for a woman and treating them as a piece of property that needs to be taken care of like a fancy lamp as a good thing, but it's other people who are being disrespectful of the culture?

I think so. Whites are plainly disrespecting Kenyan culture and they plainly mean it, but the Kenyans mean no disrespect.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, he's talking about men going to war for a woman and treating them as a piece of property that needs to be taken care of like a fancy lamp as a good thing, but it's other people who are being disrespectful of the culture?

I think so. Whites are plainly disrespecting Kenyan culture and they plainly mean it, but the Kenyans mean no disrespect.

Umm ... so what? If a position is not worthy of respect, what does the race or culture of the people judging it have to do with anything?

If I'm against burning people alive and beheading them for disagreeing with your religion, does that mean I'm an elitist white Westerner who's not showing proper respect for ISIS's cultural values?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think so. Whites are plainly disrespecting Kenyan culture and they plainly mean it, but the Kenyans mean no disrespect.

Umm ... so what? If a position is not worthy of respect, what does the race or culture of the people judging it have to do with anything?

If I'm against burning people alive and beheading them for disagreeing with your religion, does that mean I'm an elitist white Westerner who's not showing proper respect for ISIS's cultural values?

The disrespect can go both ways. In this case, the disrespect is plainly going at least one way (whites are plainly and openly disrespecting Kenyans), and whether Kenyans are disrespecting anyone is debatable, culturally dependent.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Umm ... so what? If a position is not worthy of respect, what does the race or culture of the people judging it have to do with anything?

If I'm against burning people alive and beheading them for disagreeing with your religion, does that mean I'm an elitist white Westerner who's not showing proper respect for ISIS's cultural values?

The disrespect can go both ways. In this case, the disrespect is plainly going at least one way (whites are plainly and openly disrespecting Kenyans), and whether Kenyans are disrespecting anyone is debatable, culturally dependent.

It's not disrespecting "Kenyans", it's disrespecting the treating of women as property (which is something worth disrespecting). There's nothing inherent about Kenyans which forces them to do that or anything about my position which wouldn't apply equally well to the elitist white guy next to me who also thought that women should be the property of the man.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The disrespect can go both ways. In this case, the disrespect is plainly going at least one way (whites are plainly and openly disrespecting Kenyans), and whether Kenyans are disrespecting anyone is debatable, culturally dependent.

It's not disrespecting "Kenyans", it's disrespecting the treating of women as property (which is something worth disrespecting). There's nothing inherent about Kenyans which forces them to do that or anything about my position which wouldn't apply equally well to the elitist white guy next to me who also thought that women should be the property of the man.

I accept or partially accept the premises, here, but there really isn't much of a difference between disrespecting a commonly-accepted facet of a culture and disrespecting the culture. You see the difference, but Kenyans wouldn't. One of my colleagues from grad school was a Nigerian immigrant, and we talked over dinner about the treatment of homosexuals in Nigeria. He said that any homosexual in Nigeria is driven out of his village, that is the way it should be, and westerners should mind their own damn business about it. I said that such a practice is highly backward and cruel. Of course he did not take kindly to that statement. I disrespected his culture, I knew it, I accepted it, and I saw it as justified.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I am remembering more of the conversation. He said, "It is a cultural difference." I said, "Some cultures are better than others."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's not disrespecting "Kenyans", it's disrespecting the treating of women as property (which is something worth disrespecting). There's nothing inherent about Kenyans which forces them to do that or anything about my position which wouldn't apply equally well to the elitist white guy next to me who also thought that women should be the property of the man.

I accept or partially accept the premises, here, but there really isn't much of a difference between disrespecting a commonly-accepted facet of a culture and disrespecting the culture. You see the difference, but Kenyans wouldn't. One of my colleagues from grad school was a Nigerian immigrant, and we talked over dinner about the treatment of homosexuals in Nigeria. He said that any homosexual in Nigeria is driven out of his village, that is the way it should be, and westerners should mind their own damn business about it. I said that such a practice is highly backward and cruel. Of course he did not take kindly to that statement. I disrespected his culture, I knew it, I accepted it, and I saw it as justified.

Ya ... no. If I were to get offended by someone opining that stealing land from a native american and raping his children is not considered proper manners because I see that as an anti-Canadian attitude due to our having done that ... like ... a lot ... then it would just mean that I'm an asshole and my offense wouldn't be a negative comment on the person who said it.

Your colleague there was an asshole. Your statement was disrespectful of assholes, not of Nigerians. Defending asshole behaviour by saying "Hey, fuck you, people where I come from like being assholes" isn't a legitimate defence of that behaviour and can't be legitimately used as a slight against the person who's saying that people shouldn't be assholes.

You were disrespecting behaviour, not culture. His attempt to defend asshole behaviour by portraying you as the bad guy for doing something that you weren't doing isn't a valid defense.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I accept or partially accept the premises, here, but there really isn't much of a difference between disrespecting a commonly-accepted facet of a culture and disrespecting the culture. You see the difference, but Kenyans wouldn't. One of my colleagues from grad school was a Nigerian immigrant, and we talked over dinner about the treatment of homosexuals in Nigeria. He said that any homosexual in Nigeria is driven out of his village, that is the way it should be, and westerners should mind their own damn business about it. I said that such a practice is highly backward and cruel. Of course he did not take kindly to that statement. I disrespected his culture, I knew it, I accepted it, and I saw it as justified.

Ya ... no. If I were to get offended by someone opining that stealing land from a native american and raping his children is not considered proper manners because I see that as an anti-Canadian attitude due to our having done that ... like ... a lot ... then it would just mean that I'm an asshole and my offense wouldn't be a negative comment on the person who said it.

Your colleague there was an asshole. Your statement was disrespectful of assholes, not of Nigerians. Defending asshole behaviour by saying "Hey, fuck you, people where I come from like being assholes" isn't a legitimate defence of that behaviour and can't be legitimately used as a slight against the person who's saying that people shouldn't be assholes.

You were disrespecting behaviour, not culture. His attempt to defend asshole behaviour by portraying you as the bad guy for doing something that you weren't doing isn't a valid defense.

My perspective is that some cultures are morally better than other cultures, but it would kinda follow from your perspective that the vast majority of Nigerians are assholes. His position is actually moderate with respect to Nigeria. In northern Nigeria, homosexuals are commonly killed.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My perspective is that some cultures are morally better than other cultures, but it would kinda follow from your perspective that the vast majority of Nigerians are assholes. His position is actually moderate with respect to Nigeria. In northern Nigeria, homosexuals are commonly killed.

If the vast majority of people in an area want to kill homosexuals, then yes, the vast majority of people in that area are assholes. That's a trivially obvious statement.

I wouldn't go so far as to assign moral superiority to cultures as a whole, but would limit it to specific behaviours within those cultures. It is somewhat of a moot distinction to parse out the meaning between "Culture A has more morally superior behaviours than Culture B" and "Culture A is morally superior to Culture B", but it's an important distinction. It emphasizes that there's not something inherently wrong with the culture as a whole, but just that there are some aspects of the culture which need to change.

 

[ApostateAbe]

My perspective is that some cultures are morally better than other cultures, but it would kinda follow from your perspective that the vast majority of Nigerians are assholes. His position is actually moderate with respect to Nigeria. In northern Nigeria, homosexuals are commonly killed.

If the vast majority of people in an area want to kill homosexuals, then yes, the vast majority of people in that area are assholes. That's a trivially obvious statement.

I wouldn't go so far as to assign moral superiority to cultures as a whole, but would limit it to specific behaviours within those cultures. It is somewhat of a moot distinction to parse out the meaning between "Culture A has more morally superior behaviours than Culture B" and "Culture A is morally superior to Culture B", but it's an important distinction. It emphasizes that there's not something inherently wrong with the culture as a whole, but just that there are some aspects of the culture which need to change.

You are willing to call the vast majority of people within an area assholes, but maybe we should instead assign a differing moral value to the culture they belong to. It violates an ideological dogma to do that, but I think the truth requires it, and it really is the better moral option, in my opinion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are willing to call the vast majority of people within an area assholes, but maybe we should instead assign a differing moral value to the culture they belong to. It violates an ideological dogma to do that, but I think the truth requires it, and it really is the better moral option, in my opinion.

I don't think so. Assigning the moral value to the culture as a whole as opposed to specific behaviours which happen to be a part of that culture isn't valid. I'm not saying that they're just generally assholes and not speaking of any aspect of their culture beyond their treatment of homosexuals - they're assholes in regards to one particular thing. It's a pretty damn significant thing, to be sure, but still just one thing.

Applying the condemnation to the entire culture carries with it the implication that a similar amount of disrespect is being given to all the other aspects of the culture which aren't actually being referenced. If there's nothing about the point being made if it were referencing Britians or Australians instead of Nigerians, then the Nigerian culture is irrelevant to the condemnation being made, not central to it.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You are willing to call the vast majority of people within an area assholes, but maybe we should instead assign a differing moral value to the culture they belong to. It violates an ideological dogma to do that, but I think the truth requires it, and it really is the better moral option, in my opinion.

I don't think so. Assigning the moral value to the culture as a whole as opposed to specific behaviours which happen to be a part of that culture isn't valid. I'm not saying that they're just generally assholes and not speaking of any aspect of their culture beyond their treatment of homosexuals - they're assholes in regards to one particular thing. It's a pretty damn significant thing, to be sure, but still just one thing.

Applying the condemnation to the entire culture carries with it the implication that a similar amount of disrespect is being given to all the other aspects of the culture which aren't actually being referenced. If there's nothing about the point being made if it were referencing Britians or Australians instead of Nigerians, then the Nigerian culture is irrelevant to the condemnation being made, not central to it.

OK, would you be comfortable assigning a moral value to a limited facet of the culture? Certainly their love of eating yams isn't reprehensible, but maybe the cultural component that causes their excessive hatred of homosexuality can be considered reprehensible. I take that attitude to be more logical than judgments of foreign individuals with respect to my own culture and not with respect to their own culture.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, would you be comfortable assigning a moral value to a limited facet of the culture? Certainly their love of eating yams isn't reprehensible, but maybe the cultural component that causes their excessive hatred of homosexuality can be considered reprehensible. I take that attitude to be more logical than judgments of foreign individuals with respect to my own culture and not with respect to their own culture.

Yes, I feel that specific aspects of a culture can be morally judged without any difficulty. That's why I've said that like five times. It's when the condemnation of a specific behaviour gets treated as a condemnation of the culture as a whole that it loses validity.

When that guy said that condemning treating woman as property was some kind of anti-Kenyan statement, he was wrong. When your colleague said that condemning killing homosexuals was some kind of anti-Nigerian statement, he was wrong. They are logically invalid attempts to derail the conversation away from the discussion of the reprehensible behaviour by making an unwarranted attack on the person condemning it as opposed to trying to defend the behaviour.

It doesn't matter what culture you're from, if you support treating women as property, you deserve to be judged negatively. It doesn't matter what culture you're from, if you support beating homosexuals to death, you deserve to be judged negatively. The cultures themselves aren't relevant parts of the conversation.

 

[ApostateAbe]

OK, would you be comfortable assigning a moral value to a limited facet of the culture? Certainly their love of eating yams isn't reprehensible, but maybe the cultural component that causes their excessive hatred of homosexuality can be considered reprehensible. I take that attitude to be more logical than judgments of foreign individuals with respect to my own culture and not with respect to their own culture.

Yes, I feel that specific aspects of a culture can be morally judged without any difficulty. That's why I've said that like five times. It's when the condemnation of a specific behaviour gets treated as a condemnation of the culture as a whole that it loses validity.

When that guy said that condemning treating woman as property was some kind of anti-Kenyan statement, he was wrong. When your colleague said that condemning killing homosexuals was some kind of anti-Nigerian statement, he was wrong. They are logically invalid attempts to derail the conversation away from the discussion of the reprehensible behaviour by making an unwarranted attack on the person condemning it as opposed to trying to defend the behaviour.

It doesn't matter what culture you're from, if you support treating women as property, you deserve to be judged negatively. It doesn't matter what culture you're from, if you support beating homosexuals to death, you deserve to be judged negatively. The cultures themselves aren't relevant parts of the conversation.

OK, we are almost on the same page. I would refrain from condemning the individual, and I would be in favor of condemning the reprehensible aspect of his or her culture, but you would do both? It may follow from my own personality generally--seldom morally judging individuals but instead judging thoughts, behaviors and actions.

 

[credoconsolans]

That's sweet.

If he's following tradition of some native African cultures, he's perfectly in line and being respectful.

I recall reading one girl's blog from when she vacationed with her parents in Africa and chose the time to grow out all her crazy hair dyes. Someone offered her father 4 cows for her. She was tall, skinny and had 4 different colors of hair on her head.

Yowza!

 

[skepticalbip]

The article didn't say if Obama had accepted the bride price, if he is considering it, or if he rejected it. "Inquiring minds want to know."