In philosophy class today, we finished watching a movie called "Moolaadé." It was about a culture in Africa that practiced female circumcision as a means of “purification.”

It was performed every seven years for young girls by a group of elder women in red robes. Colé, whose first daughter is implied to have died in such a ceremony, refused to submit her second daughter to be “cut”; as a consequence seven years later, a group of four girls who didn’t want to be cut sought her for Moolaadé, a magical protection.

Because of her actions, Colé is subjugated to various punishments, such as social pressures from the women and getting beaten by her husband, to make her say the words to end the Moolaadé. Even those around her were subjugated to penalty: One man who tries to stop her husband from beating her was later murdered; one girl who stepped outside of the protection of the Moolaadé later died from being cut. As a result, Colé finally wins the support from many of the mothers to confront the elder women and the men, and the movie ends on a happy note, though nothing is explicitly said.

I thought that this movie was well done and quite interesting, though it raises a few questions. Throughout the movie, Western culture is seen as ubiquitous. Though they live in mud buildings and don’t have running water, the women use colorful plastic tubs and are glued to their radios. This leads me to wonder at what life was like before Western cultures influenced the locals and if it was really good for the people.

To most of us Westerners, we think that the abolishment of female circumcision is a good thing. But what about the other aspects of our culture, such as spending to excess and the idea of credit — get now, pay later? What about the loss of the unique customs of one tight-knit group and the transformation into yet another group of a homogeneous individual mass? Can we really say which is the "right" or "better" culture?

Or have I just taken one too many quarters of philosophy?