The sociology of the Arabian peninsula tribes is the key to understanding the Arab character and mentality. In order to trace the historical features of that character and mentality, we must try to imagine the way of life in the inland wastes of the eastern regions of the peninsula over the last twenty centuries. But why the eastern not the western regions? We shall explain why after presenting a panoramic survey of the historical features of the character and mental make-up of the tribes inhabiting the eastern regions of the Arabian peninsula, specifically the tribes of the hinterland, not the coastal areas.
For the past twenty centuries, the tribes living in the eastern regions of the Arabian peninsula have been leading a pastoral life as opposed to a settled life, roaming in search of pasturage and water. As a result of this lifestyle, the attitude of the Arab tribesman living in those regions to such notions as loyalty, objectivity and neutrality cannot be understood in isolation from the sociology of nomadism, the culture pattern of Bedouin tribes forced by their environment to move constantly in search of sustenance. Their unconditional loyalty is reserved for the sheikh of the tribe; objectivity is an alien concept and neutrality akin to treason.
As the eminent Egyptian critic Galal el-Ashry noted in his treatise on Arab creativity, the only creative area in which the Arabs excelled was poetry. That is the only form of artistic expression they produced for reasons we shall not go into here. They did not produce theatre, novels, epics, music or other creative forms like the Greeks and, before them, the Egyptians and the Sumerians.
The poetry composed by the poets hailing from the eastern regions of the Arabian peninsula is a mirror reflecting the value system of the tribes of the region, their mores, concerns, behaviour and thinking. The image reflected by their poetry has remained unchanged for centuries. An ode written in classical Arabic over ten centuries ago by a poet from Najd reflects the same values and world view as one written in the vernacular by a poet living in Najd today. Most of the poetry of the region, old and new, resounds with the cadence of stirring imagery, its main themes pride and the superiority of the Bedouin, who is always victorious, never defeated, who bows to no one and stands high above all others. In fact, the word for ‘lofty’ in Arabic is nouf, from whence the proper names Nayef, Nouf and Nawaf. This then is the message that thousands of odes by poets from Najd, Hasa, al-Qassim and al-Hofouf have tried to convey ever since the Arabic language in its present form came into being and up to the present day. This view of life as reflected by the poetry of the region encapsulates the sociology of its nomadic tribes.
The reason we are focusing on the eastern inland areas of the Arabian peninsula rather than on the eastern coastal areas and the region of Hejaz is that the inland areas were the crucible in which the brand of Islamist thinking known as Wahabism was forged. During the second half of the twentieth century, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia spent hundreds of billions of dollars to spread this doctrine, which had by then become influenced by three external factors: the ideas of Abul Ala’ el-Mawdoody, Sayed Qutb and the Soroureya school of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Syrian chapter. But these factors did not dilute the essence of the Wahabi understanding of Islam. On the contrary, because of the simplistic thinking of Mohamed ibn Abdul Wahab in comparison with the schools of el-Mawdoody, Qutb and the Soroureya, they helped to reinforce it and swell the ranks of its adherents.
The tribal Arab mindset formed in the inland deserts of the eastern Arabian peninsula took over leadership of intellectual life in Arab and Muslim societies after the failure of the stage of liberalism and the blend of socialism and Arab nationalism that had at one time held sway. However, the degree to which Arab and Muslim societies have come to be influenced by the tribal mentality born in the harsh eastern wasteland of the Arabian peninsula differs from one society to another in proportion to each society’s historical and cultural legacy and according to its political and socio-economic conditions. Thus while its influence was most strongly felt in the inland regions of the Arabian peninsula, it was weaker in the coastal cities of the peninsula and weaker still in societies like Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Iraq and India that enjoy a richer legacy of history, civilization and culture than the Arabian peninsula. Still, the Bedouin world view forged in the barren deserts of the eastern Arabian peninsula and expressed in the poetry produced by poets from the region is the most important key to understanding the ways of thinking prevailing in many Arab and Muslim societies.
The culture pattern that formed the Bedouin world view is in total contradiction with the concept of statehood. Loyalty to the sheikh of the tribe is personal by its very nature while loyalty to the state is a more abstract notion. In the tribe, obedience to the wishes and instructions of the sheikh is the counterpart to the modern citizen’s adherence to the constitutional and legal rules of the state. According to the sociology of the tribal mindset, the specificity of which has been described in some detail in this article, the Other is perceived as an enemy or, at best, as a potential enemy to be neutralized. In the modern state system, on the other hand, the Other is regarded as a natural expression of the diversity of life, inspiring neither rejection nor enmity. In a tribal environment there can be no discussion of such issues as diversity, acceptance of the Other, engaging in self-criticism and accepting criticism, the universal nature of knowledge or the recognition that it is the collective legacy of humanity as a whole, all fruits of the modern, progressive, civilized state. Indeed the very notion of humanity is alien to the tribal society.
If we borrow from the great philosopher Ibn Khaldoun his theory on the distinction between urban and Bedouin societies, we can say that the contemporary Islamic mindset (not Islam itself) is conditioned by a brand of Islam as understood, presented and propagated over the last half century by the Bedouin tribes living in the inland deserts of the eastern Arabian peninsula. Given that most of the Islamic centres and schools established in North America, Europe, Australia and in non-Muslim regions of Asia and Africa were set up at the initiative and with the funding of representatives of this insular tribal mindset it is not hard to understand why the world today sees itself locked in a major confrontation between humanity and Islam. In truth, however, the confrontation is between humanity and a model of Islam presented, financed and propagated by the Bedouin, or Najdi, mindset.
One of the most alarming developments of the last five decades is that the Najdi mindset did not stop at monopolizing Islamic centres and schools throughout the world but expanded its sphere of influence to include the mass media both within and outside Arab and Islamic societies. Its tentacles also spread to venerable Islamic institutions in countries like Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and Syria, eroding their original features and replacing them with its own. Thus while in the past we knew when listening to the Friday sermon in Egypt that the speaker was either a Shafite or a Hannafite and in Morocco or Tunisia that he was a Maliki, we now hear an altogether different tune, a single Hanbalite note set to the music of ibn-Taymiyah and ibn-Abdul Wahab.
Although of all the Islamic jurists ibn-Hanbal was the most zealous proponent of orthodoxy and tradition, allowing little if any room for deductive reasoning [he accepted tens of thousands of the Prophet’s Hadiths as apostolic precept contrary to the great jurist Abu Hanifa, who accepted just over one hundred), he was a natural product of his time. It was a time the Islamic Empire was reeling from the onslaught of the Moguls and the Tatars, and he cannot be blamed for ideas that were appropriate to the age in which he lived. The blame lies with those who, living in a different time and place, base their ideas on those of ibn-Hanbal. Finally, Mohamed ibn-Abdul Wahab is by no means a jurist but merely a proselytizer seeking converts to the Najdi model of Islam which needs to be understood in the context of its tribal, Bedouin, insular, desert origins. Had it not been for the fact that oil was discovered in these regions, this model would have remained a prisoner of geography, locked behind the sand dunes of Najd which produced no art, music or literature but only poetry devoted to a single theme: the glorification of the tribal values of Najd.
Excellent!
Just add that some kind of "tribalism" has pervived in Western societies as a patron-client system of relations, that so much hurts hispanic countries.
Moreover, many Leftist mass media, were ideologically orphan after the collapse of the Soviet Union and welcome both Islamic radicalism against the Western World and petrodollars.
Tarek - Great explanation of the why's. It is amazing what mischief almost unlimited petrodollars can beget. There are no systems to modulate the excesses of such a system as the world can plainly see. Now how do we deal with those excesses? Any answers that the West seems to have come up with are not tidy.
A smart man told me that one of the prices of age is that you eventually find out that your prejudices are proven true. I always felt that the problems emanating from that part of the world could be tied back to primitive tribalism.
I hate when that happens....
The original message of Islam came from the same region and the same mindset. Of course, these Islamic precepts were ameliorated by more open traditions as it was spread usually through conquest to other regions. On this model one would expect the most tolerant traditional strains of Islam to be located farthest geographically from Arabia. Further one would expect a even stronger amelioration in those rare instances where the religion was not spread by the sword.
There also would be a tendency for the living religion to have power to suppress the textual aspects of the faith in proportion to the number of followers unable to actually read and understand the original texts. In such instances the religious scholars could maintain a living tradition that evolves outside the boundaries of the original texts. This possibility is also enhanced in the case that the scholars themselves have trouble with the underlying language of the texts since this would open them to interpretation.
Once you have increased literacy and authoritative translations by scholars who are familiar with the original language all this goes out the window. Especially with oil money funding backing the expansion of the more original temperament of the religion.
Which leaves the followers of Islam in a predicament. The actual religious texts Islam and the actions of Mohammad reflect this bedouin mindset. So a follower from Indonesia is left to wonder what true Islam is. Is true Islam the more tolerant version that is more reflective of the beliefs of his own Indonesia ancestors, or is it the Islam of the foreigners.
Do they continue to accept and honor the modifications made by their own ancestors in light of their local religious wisdom and improved over a period since it's eleventh century arrival in Indonesia? An Islam that arrived already in a form modified enough that local acceptance did not involve the same kind of violence used in the Mediterranean, Persia and India. Or do the revert to the less evolved version present in the Saudi Peninsula?
An absolutely great piece of research and thought. It reminds me of what Machiavelli said regarding the loss of one's patriarch or patrimony and men's subsquent action. The question I have is whom is the sheik you have to replace in order to dissapate the threat caused by this type of thinking/belief. Can you change the house of Saud? Can the house of Saud cause a reformation within the Wahabi creed?
According to this narrative, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 would at best be something that could be explained away. This very important history does not fit naturally with the story being told.
Therefore I do not find the story persuasive.
The Persians should not have made themselves a great wellspring of Islamic zeal. That is not supposed to be the sort of place a threat can emanate from.
And the threat is very much the threat of Islam, of zeal for Allah and hatred for His enemies, and of support for catspaws such as the Party of Allah, Hezbollah. That is not supposed to be the case wither. The problem is supposed to be the mere tribal backwardness of a certain group of people, and not Islam itself.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 05/29/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Brilliant work. There is a lot more here to be garnered than a simple condemnation of the Najdi and their influence. It is a perfect mirror in which we can examine ourselves. The Neocons and the religious right remind me of these tribes.
A view of the world that is insular, didactic, fearful, reactionary and ignorant. In much the same way that this Najdi style of Islam has hijacked the centers of thought in the Arab and Muslim world, so to have the Neo-cons hijacked conservatism in the U.S.
The Neo-cons did not replace our foreign and domestic security policies, the destroyed them and tried to replace it with a Najdi type of world view.
It is time for we conservatives to reject these people for who they are, a particularly ignorant strain of reactionaries.
Again, thanks for the good work.
"A view of the world that is insular, didactic, fearful, reactionary and ignorant. In much the same way that this Najdi style of Islam has hijacked the centers of thought in the Arab and Muslim world, so to have the Neo-cons hijacked conservatism in the U.S.
The Neo-cons did not replace our foreign and domestic security policies, the destroyed them and tried to replace it with a Najdi type of world view."
Oh, please. Is this supposed to be reality-based stuff? This may be true for some fringes of the christian right, but the "neo-cons"? Go on pull my other leg.
8 from FabioC. at 8:59 am on May 30, 2007
I actually think you agree with my statement and disagree only in a matter of degree. Under this administration and the world view of the NeoCons, fear, reaction, didacticism and ignorance has been allowed to spread through every part of the government. I do not think that conservatives should continue to support or give credence to this group of intellectually bankrupt clowns.
No, TOC, I should stop to try and engage you in conversation. My potted chilli plants can form more complex thoughts.
For all of you - Iran city was the first city in the world. We need to respect them. Arabians the eldest cultured nation in the world
Pigeon,
It's true that Islamic civilization was once the most advanced on earth. But that was nearly 1000 years ago and it hasn't advanced an inch since then. It has stagnated almost to the point that Islamic civilization has become an oxymoron.
"For all of you - Iran city was the first city in the world. We need to respect them. Arabians the eldest cultured nation in the world"
Lets start by recognizing that Iranians aren't Arab.
Fred, are you really prepared to argue that the Ottoman Empire contained no no political, economic, military, scientific, navagational or artistic advancements beyond what existed in 1007 A.D.? How about anything coming out of the Mughal Empire in India up until 1857....not a single advancement therein? Indonesia over the last 40 or 50 years? Nothing out of modern-day Turkey? Not an inch, eh, in 1,000 years?
mark,
You shouldn't ask Fred to refute his own argument for you. Do your own work and list a few advances out of Islamdom. Should be easy.
Thanks for the advice, luker, but I think I've already done that. I think the very existence of the Ottoman and the Moghul Empires refute the claim that Islamic civilization hasn't advance one inch since a thousand years agao.
Its a hyperbolic claim, obviously, but its wrapped up in a relevant point I think. Something has gone badly wrong with Islamic civilization by any sane benchmarks (ie- not modern multiculturalism). You can tell a lot about a civilization by the way they treat their women, and i think that is a huge part of this btw.
What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response is a classic study of this. When you lay out the facts- the large scale belief of the Arabs in particular that European (and hence Zionist) imperialism is the source of all Islamic ills is ludicrious. Consider the huge lead in technology and wealth the Middle East had 100 years ago, the question of why Egyptian mariners didnt discover the New World (contemporarilly anyway), or why Ottoman scientists didnt invent moveable type, or why no Persian perfected musket wielding infantry regiments needs to be asked.
It may go against every politically correct impulse drilled into us, but it is the elephant in the room at the root of this entire global conflict.
"Middle East had 100 years ago,"
Typo- 1000 years ago, obviously.
#10 from FabioC. at 2:31 pm on May 30, 2007
Good to see you are a gardener. Even more evidence that you will eventually come around.
Mark B.
There's some confusion to me about your comment. 1. Are you suggesting that how Muslims treat women is somehow connected with Ottoman "failure" to invent moveable type? 2. Did you mean 1,000 years ago where you wrote 100?
Do you think it's a relevant question to ask why moveable type was invented in Germany and not Scotland? Does this say something about the Scots...or the Chinese, who also "failed" to invent moveable type?
Egyptian mariners did not discover the New World because they controlled one of the key overland routes to the spice trade and weren't looking for away around themselves to avoid themselves in the way the Portuguese and Spanish were. Egyptian mariners were focused on the Mediterreanan and the Indian Ocean trade networks because that's were the money was...that's where civilization was. It was an accident of history and geography that Portugal and Spain were backwaters of contemporary history that caused them to find a route to the civilized riches and trade and they ACCIDENTALLY discovered the New World.
" 1. Are you suggesting that how Muslims treat women is somehow connected with Ottoman "failure" to invent moveable type? 2. Did you mean 1,000 years ago where you wrote 100?"
Yes to both, although a qualified yes to the former. Actually i'll be more explicit and say that the reason modern Islamic nations, particularly Arab nations, fail to even copy modern technologies and manufacturing techniques invented decades ago owes a good chunk to their repression of half their populations. Obviously that applied to Western cultures as well for a long time, but not to the same degree and certainly not for as long. There was no Joan of Arc or Madam Currie in Islamic history. The West burned Joan, but they let her change history first, which is something the Caliphate could never have allowed under any circumstance.
Thats but one key difference. I think the much larger point is how the Ottomans et al viewed foriegn advances compared to the Europeans in particular.
European innovations were always viewed in the context of how this Kafir object or doctrine could possibly apply much less improve the perfection of Islam (early on, this was simply never). Later when it became undeniable that European technology was superior, the same question was asked but the advance could only be adopted in a very limited way- IE the musket could be adopted but not modern military doctrine, or doctrine would later be adopted but not the chain of command necessary. Etc. Europeans generally had no such compunctions, if the idea worked they used and adapted it. There is no Christian idea that the Christian world was perfect and the gift of god, and hence change wasnt such a problem idealogically.
Look at the number of European travellers and expatriots to the East over the ages, and the tiny number in reverse. It was (and is) against Islamic law to move to a non-Islamic nation (if you are born there it is different). Its not permissable to live amongst infidels without a very specific purpose (an envoy), or to befriend one. All these things sap the exchange of information and technology.
Like i said, there is no ONE silver bullet, but there are many reason Islam as a philosophy has retarded the growth of Muslims. Mark we can sit here and you can blow holes in each instance of the far east or West advancing leaps and bounds past the Middle East, but the sheer purponderance of the evidence has to be acknowledged does it not?
Here's an interesting something to think about. Below is a link to a list of important women throughout history.
I mean, this is really eye opening. There are powerful Pharoh-queens of Egypt, African social workers (catholic), Chinese painters, British monarchs, the Queen of Sheeba, Cleopatra, Helen Keller, Queen Isabel, Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of Scots, Tz'u-hsi who ruled China, rulers of Rome, Saints, Oprah Winfrey... but every epoch and land that Islam has ruled its like someone took a scythe to the records. Who's the most famous Muslim woman you can name? I've got Benazir Bhutto, most famous for being deposed from office twice. Aside from a couple of apostate authors with death sentences on their heads, thats all i've got.
Women in history
Mark B., I think I wasn't very clear earlier. I am not disputing that the West is more economically, politically, militarily and technologically more advanced (I'll leave culture out because that is too subjective to make comparisons) than any other region, including the Middle East, today. But looking over the great range of history, it seems to me that the ascendency of one civilization over others at any one given time is due more to accident than to innate character. The West may have advanced leaps and bounds over the Middle East in the past 400 years (i.e. about 8% of recorded history), but what does that tell us about Middle East civilzaton vs., say, African. I mean, how did the Ottomans get so far advanced if their religion is such a drag on advancement. How did the Ottomans manage to out advance the Roman/Byzantine world. How did the early Muslim world manage to out advance the Hellenestic world 500 years before the Ottomans? I just don't see how their could be anything inherent in the Islamic character that retards civilization advances.
The connection between advancement and treatment of women theory completely breaks down under the most casual examination of our own history. I would question the validity of your Joan of Arc example that even though she was burned alive, she was actually treated quite well by society because a tiny group of aristocratic french men allowed her to lead in battle and after she was successful the superstitous peasants rallied to her psyco claims of being spoken to by God.
If the failure of Arabs to copy modern technology is attributable to their repression of over half their society, how do you explain the industrial revolution occuring when women were repressed in the West?
Let's look again at Tarek Heggy's idea that "Arab and Muslim societies have come to be influenced by the tribal mentality born in the harsh eastern wasteland of the Arabian peninsula", and that this is extraneous to Islam. (That is, it's not that Islam includes as key and essential components ideas and values of plunder and domination from Muhammed (pbuh) himself.)
This is a claim not only about the history of Islam but also about the world about us now, and an implied solution to our problems. Since it's the hicks from the hinterlands that are the only problem, if domination within the Islamic world passes to other groups, such as the more urban Egyptians or Iranians, things should be fine again.
However, I don't agree with these claims, I think the problems with Islam are from Muhammed (pbuh), I don't think more urban and educated people such as the Palestinians are necessarily morally superior, and as a practical matter I don't think a shift in the internal domination battles on the Islamic world from the Saudis to the Iranians would help us.
And I am skeptical that "which Muslims deserve to dominate?" or "which Muslims should we praise, support or even intervene to favor?" would be a good question for us to focus on in dealing with the global Islamic threat.
Of course Muslim Iranians, Egyptians and other Muslim peoples feel that they ought to be superior to others, and that whoever is influential and wealthy now ought to move aside for them. Of course they do. Given Islamic values, nothing could be more natural. But what's in it for us?
We see with the behavior of the Sunni Iraqis how much pride is in the Muslim world - and how cruel this pride is, how implacably it is set on domination, and how inimical it is to us.
"I just don't see how their could be anything inherent in the Islamic character that retards civilization advances."
Here's our first problem- you immediately think 'character' when i have consistantly stated it is philosophy. There is nothing is Muslim DNA or personality that subverts achievement- it is a deliberate embrace of a set of values that automatically abhors change and particularly change from the outside. Muslims arent alone- think Japan until just before WW2. Muslims are just persistant.
" I would question the validity of your Joan of Arc example that even though she was burned alive, she was actually treated quite well"
Again, you are building straw men (predictable straw men right out of the multicultural playbook btw). I never said she was treated well. I said she wasnt slapped down to her knees, whipped, and send sent weeping back to her arranged husband the first time she tried to speak in public. I said she was allowed to do what she did by the French because of UTILITY. They needed her, even though they abhorred her, so they used her. Generally that would NEVER have happened in a Muslim nation- no goal could possibly be so important as to set Islam at naught, it would be paradoxical. Again, this is philosophy, not even necessarilly mysoginy.
"If the failure of Arabs to copy modern technology is attributable to their repression of over half their society, how do you explain the industrial revolution occuring when women were repressed in the West?"
Because we both know women were critical to the industrial revolution. First, as factory workers, but also due to the relationship of men and women in the West. Men in Islamic nations wouldnt be caught dead making clothing. It would be an impossibiliy no matter how wonderous and novel the textile industry could become. Thats in fact an excellent example.
But take the West out of it. Again- even Africa gives Islam a run for their money on some fronts... and mind you most of Africa is Islamic as well. The far East have consistantly outstripped the Middle East in power, invention, and relevance. My point is that Islam is a conscious decision to reject outside advances and modernity in general- except where it suits them. But thats not how cultural advance works (when it works).
Mark B.,
I would argue that "a deliberate embrace of a set of values" IS a very good definition of character. (for the that being a fairly common definition, look no further than Clinton and "character" issue in 2000 election.)
"Again, you are building straw men (predictable straw men right out of the multicultural playbook btw)" Hey,now, Mark...wait a minute. That was no strawman (or woman)....YOU brought her up. I was only responding to your example. (I would rather be "slapped down to [my] knees, whipped, and send sent weeping back to [my] arranged husband the first time [I] tried to speak in public" than be burned alive. Your preferences my vary.
But I remain unconvinced of the validity of your theory that a society's treatment of women in any way correalates to its ability to develop or embrace technological advancements.
I will simply re-iterate my last arguement in the hopes that you might address it. If there was something in the...call it what you want...philosophy of Islam that prevents it from advancing, it would never have advanced so far in the several instances of historical advancement I have referenced in relation to other contemporary civilizations, cultures or what have you. The Ottomans, Indonesians, Andulusians, Moghuls, are all good examples of muslim societies advancing over centuries to the direct detriment of non-muslim cultures, societies, or what ever. These advancements include cultural, military, political, architectural, scientific, adminsitrative, technological. Right now, the Islamic World cannot compete with the West on any of those fields, but I think you'll have to look elsewhere for the reasons.
OK, now I'm going to get off topic, twice.
#20 from mark: "Egyptian mariners did not discover the New World because they controlled one of the key overland routes to the spice trade and weren't looking for away around themselves to avoid themselves in the way the Portuguese and Spanish were. Egyptian mariners were focused on the Mediterreanan and the Indian Ocean trade networks because that's were the money was...that's where civilization was."
Egyptians circumnavigated Africa. That's not where the money was.
Even so, compared to the remarkable Greeks, the Egyptians were comparatively incurious, comparatively lacking in innovation and competition. Greek religion prompted the development of drama. Egyptian religion did not.
All religions are not equal. They have good and bad points, and these good and bad points need not add up to be equal overall.
#23 from mark: "I would question the validity of your Joan of Arc example that even though she was burned alive, she was actually treated quite well by society because a tiny group of aristocratic french men allowed her to lead in battle and after she was successful the superstitous peasants rallied to her psyco claims of being spoken to by God."
I have a good idea of Joan's career, and I do not think that a. you gave an accurate statement of how #21 from Mark Buehner described it or how it was.
Obligatory on-topic comments:
Are we supposed to think that the problem with Islamic terror in Thailand comes down to Bedouin influence and nothing else?
If the problem with Islamic jurisprudence is ibn-Hanbal, particularly in Afghanistan, what major school of Islamic legal interpretation would have said: he is entitled to change his religion if he wants to, he must be left in peace?
If didn't matter in this dispute whether the Hanbali school or some other school was privileged in the Afghan constitution, then it doesn't matter from the point of view of the fundamental conflict between freedom of religion and Islamic religious coercion what may be said about Hanbal and his background, or whether he recognized more than a pamphlet's worth of hadiths or whatever. We could read minutiae about him forever, but it would have nothing to do with the fight over those who chose their religion to suit themselves and whether they can do so safely or must fear the enmity of Islam.
"would argue that "a deliberate embrace of a set of values" IS a very good definition of character."
For an individual- but we are talking about a society. Can society have character? I dont think it really can. Society has ideals and morays, people have character.
"Hey,now, Mark...wait a minute. That was no strawman (or woman)....YOU brought her up."
And you mischaracterized the example completely.
" I was only responding to your example. (I would rather be "slapped down to [my] knees, whipped, and send sent weeping back to [my] arranged husband the first time [I] tried to speak in public" than be burned alive. Your preferences my vary."
This has nothing to do with 'preference', i dont know why you are introducing that. This has nothing to do with what was best for Joan. This isnt even an argument about Morality- you are introducing that. This is an argument about utiliy, in this case of a society. Either you are not getting that point or intentionally ignoring it. Pretend this was a chess set instead of human beings and one side flatly refused to use half their peices. The other side was perfectly willing so long as the lesser peices were useful and could be sacrificed at need. That has ZERO to do with the queens greivances against being clubbed by a bishop. This is about the game as a whole.
"But I remain unconvinced of the validity of your theory that a society's treatment of women in any way correalates to its ability to develop or embrace technological advancements."
I find that fantastic. Are you arguing that women have no ability to advance a society's development of technology? Thats just rewriting what you are saying. If its uncorrealated women have no contribution either way right? Thats crazy. Thats PC taken to the Nth degree.
"If there was something in the...call it what you want...philosophy of Islam that prevents it from advancing, it would never have advanced so far in the several instances of historical advancement I have referenced in relation to other contemporary civilizations, cultures or what have you."
For exactly the same reason a football team might have dominated with its wishbone offense 40 years ago but gets its brains beat in trying to run it now. Success was Islam's biggest enemy. The have a society based on the premise that God himself passed down the exact way society is to be ordered. For several hundred years it worked so well Islam advanced at an unbelieveable pace into a mighty empire. But over the following years the hidden trap became apparant. That philosophy worked to a point and worked so well that tampering with it became a capital offense. Progress slowed and hasnt regained momentum since.
And btw, the evidence, MOUNTAINS OF IT, are on my side. Again- name me all the Islamic inovations of the last few hundred years? I will name you inventors and artists and philosophers from just about any civilization you can name (particularly women), but it is REALLY hard to do that where Islam rules. Isnt that ODD?!
Mark B.,
I'm not sure how "this" can be "about" how women are treated by society but not about how individual women are treated.
Your making so many unjustified leaps of logic that I don't know where to begin. Your claim as I understood it is that the repression of women in a society retards that society's ability to progress. Just because women worked in the west during the 18th century doesn't mean they weren't repressed. Just because men were willing to make clothes in the 18th century doesn't mean women weren't repressed. I'd remind you that up until the early 20th century women were not allowed to vote in this country and that in the decades prior to that the US leaped ahead of just about every nation save Britain and France in its technological development. So, no, Mark, I do not believe that the represssion of women retards technical progress. Obviously, excluding any element of society, slaves, gays, serfs, left-handed people, women, men, redheads, pet-owners, will shrink the talent pool and to that extent repression of women would retard a society's progress in comparsion with that society's potential....but clearly not in comparson with other societies becasue technological advancement depends on so many other and more important factors than the size of the talent pool. Tiny, sparesly populated Scotland was home to many great industrial advancements (where women did not vote) as compared with the heavily populated Hindu-controlled south of India (where women also did not vote). So size of the talent pool is not necessarily an important factor.
So, you see, Mark, I am not arguing that women have no ability to advance a society's development of technology. Only that sex is irrelevant.
Islamic civilizations were not dominate in their regions only for a few 100 years. Islamic civilizations were dominate in their regions for well over a millenium and for about 90% of the time that Islam has existed, a fact that I think invalidates your theory.
David Blue,
"Egyptians circumnavigated Africa."
I am unware of the Egyptians having done this. My understanding is that Portugese were the first.
"Even so, compared to the remarkable Greeks, the Egyptians were comparatively incurious, comparatively lacking in innovation and competition."
Yes, but so what. Compared to the remarkable Greeks everyone was lacking.
"Greek religion prompted the development of drama. Egyptian religion did not."
Yes, but again, so what? I think we are talking about other Egyptians btw. I think we were discussing Egyptians who were contempory with Europeans in the 15th century, not of ancient greeks.
"All religions are not equal." They are to the extent that they are all equally forms of superstition.
Tarek Heggy's posts are great, and a wonderful adornment to this site. We should all appreciate that.
To me, his basic thesis makes no more sense than if he attributed all of America's problems to the fact that there was oil in barbaric Texas, and thought that if only California and the Eastern seaboard dominated American life, America would be perfect. It's irrelevant: Americans basically are what they are, whether in Houston or Hawaii, because they follow in ways established by their founding fathers and their vital documents, plus the work of Abraham Lincoln and a few others. When you see people who play to such a strong pattern no matter where they are or where they came from, over centuries, then learned discussions about whether Chicago is civilized and Crawford uncivilized become irrelevant: Americans just are what they are. And if I thought what they are was inimical to Australian freedom, I would not be saying "we should favor Atlantic City over Austin, and look down upon the primitive music of Stevie Ray Vaughan," I would be saying "we need to have less of America".
But so what, in a sense. When you have someone contributing posts as good as these, it's not whether they are right or wrong but the quality of the work they put in, the detail, the fine English expression, the gracious and thoughtful tone. So bravo Tarek Heggy!
"I'm not sure how "this" can be "about" how women are treated by society but not about how individual women are treated."
Apparently the law of averages has been invalidated. Huzzah.
"Your claim as I understood it is that the repression of women in a society retards that society's ability to progress."
And you have yet to address how this can possibly NOT be true unless women are irrelevant to society.
"Just because women worked in the west during the 18th century doesn't mean they weren't repressed. Just because men were willing to make clothes in the 18th century doesn't mean women weren't repressed."
Mark- ok, i know for a fact you are smarter than this, so i have to come to the assumption you are either taking a position or intentionally needling me for some reason. DEGREE MATTERS. The West oppressed women yes. It still does to some extent. BUT THAT DOESNT FREAKING MAKE ALL THINGS EQUAL. Christ, this is like auditing Anthropology 101 at Berkeley.
The West allowed Queen Victory to rule a mighty empire. It allowed Madam Curie to study radiation. It allowed Queen Isabel to send Columbus on his voyage. It allowed Anne Hutchinson to shape colonial America. It allowed Phillis Wheatley to publish poems, and Abigail Adams to write her letters, and for gods sake yes, even Joan to lead an army and eject the English from France. NOTHING REMOTELY LIKE THESE EVENTS OCCURED IN ISLAM IN THE LAST 1000 YEARS. THAT HAS TO MEAN SOMETHING. There is oppression and there is oppression. Islamic silencing of women is wholesale and endemic to their philosophy. Its just stupid to say because woman couldnt vote there really is no difference between a society where nary a woman has so much as run a village meeting in a thousand years. Women were marginalized in the West, they were silenced under Islam. I defy you to prove me wrong with any examples.
"So, you see, Mark, I am not arguing that women have no ability to advance a society's development of technology. Only that sex is irrelevant."
God, that is so Orwellian. Of course its irrelevant... EXCEPT that Islam systematically and very effectively cut out 50% of their society's voice in a way that dwarfed how the West treated women. Its relevant because it wasnt random- it was intentional, it was premeditated, it was instrumental to their philosophy. The idea that this had no particular impact is ABSURD. There is just no comparison to West or East.
"Islamic civilizations were not dominate in their regions only for a few 100 years. Islamic civilizations were dominate in their regions for well over a millenium and for about 90% of the time that Islam has existed, a fact that I think invalidates your theory."
Yet you have yet to extend an iota of a counter idea for this remarkable turn of events. And the point isnt how long Islam dominated- the point is how far they have fallen behind since. And your timeline of Islam is flawed. Islam reaches its height in 732, lost Jeruselem in 1099, and by the late 1500s the Ottomans were completely outclassed by the Europeans. This was a thousand year slide into mediocrity and worse. To 'dominate in their regions' is meaningless. They still dominate in their regions and still are abject failures as civilizations by just about any metric you wish to use short of the ability to sell petroleum they cant even get out of the ground without foriegn help.
#30 from mark: Re:
David Blue,
"Egyptians circumnavigated Africa."
"I am unware of the Egyptians having done this. My understanding is that Portugese were the first."
They were, in that their achievement far exceeded the Egyptians. But it's often noted that Herodotus' story of how an Egyptian ship got round the horn of Africa contains information that he found incredible but that is correct. (And nobody would have thought of reporting it so if they had not experienced it.) This is to the credit of the Egyptians, who got so far and made an accurate report (but alas found nothing potentially valuable to Pharaoh), and far more to the credit of Herodotus, who told us what his sources told him, whether he regarded it as too fantastic to be true or not. Charming and silly stories reached us that way, but also great truth, and in my opinion this is how history should be written.
#30 from mark:
Re: David Blue's statement that "All religions are not equal."
"They are to the extent that they are all equally forms of superstition."
That is an unimportant extent. It means as little as to say, all chess players are equal to the extent that they all sometimes make mistakes. That is a piffling equality sliding past vast inequalities.
"Are we supposed to think that the problem with Islamic terror in Thailand comes down to Bedouin influence and nothing else?"
The Thai muslims are for the most part ethnic Malays, who also speak a different language and all that. Actually the insurgency seems to be more along ethnic than purely religious lines.
Mark, I just don't know how you can argue that Islam reached it's height in 732, or that the Ottomans were outclassed by the Europeans by the late 1500s.
First of all, even if the latter statement were true (which it isn't), it would be irrelevant to my point. I have been at pains to stress that it is a mistake to pick two societies (west and islamic) out of so many and view them as in competition. This discussion had centered around progress (or lack of) within Islamic civilization over a period of time. It doesn't really matter if Thailand was behind or Argentina was ahead in 1602 or 1922.
The point I initially addressed and continue to make is that Islamic civilization DID progress from its beginnings up to the mid-19th century in several of its manifestations. Whether that development was more or less rapid than other civilizations at the same or other points in history is not germane.
If Islamic civilization DID progress from its beginnings up to the mid-19th century, as I claim, then the statement that it didn't move an inch is wrong AND the theory that it's repression of women prevented it from developing cannot be true.
I certainly agree that it is a matter of degree. It's what I have been arguing from the beginning. I have argued that the host of factors that contibute to the progress (or retardation) or decline of any civilization are myriad and largely circumstancial and have little or nothing to do with what I call character (as in the national character) but which you prefer to call philosophy. You claim it is a choice, but I would claim that how one thinks is generally a cultural product and not an individual choice.
I have to go now and can't contribute any further to this discussion but I will leave with the final thought that geographic location & natural resources have more to do with the rise and fall of civilizations than treatment of women. Toynbee is considered outdated now, but I think his theories on the subject are sound.
"The point I initially addressed and continue to make is that Islamic civilization DID progress from its beginnings up to the mid-19th century in several of its manifestations. Whether that development was more or less rapid than other civilizations at the same or other points in history is not germane."
Why not? Because you say so? You're trying to have it both ways in this thread- that Islam was indeed qualitatively 'strong' at point x (compared to someone else assumedly), but then that it doesnt matter and in fact is both immaterial and unproveable that they either lost that status or were overtaken because you cant compare them to other concurrent cultures. You are simply positing your own conclusions.
"If Islamic civilization DID progress from its beginnings up to the mid-19th century, as I claim, then the statement that it didn't move an inch is wrong AND the theory that it's repression of women prevented it from developing cannot be true."
And now you are playing the silly absolutist card, which I rejected in my first post on this thread. Its idiotic and nonserious to claim a culture 'didnt move an inch'. Nor did I say the way Islam treated women 'prevented' it from developing. I claimed it retarded their development, which has been retarded- although i recognize you refuse to engage that obvious and demonstrable truth.
"I have argued that the host of factors that contibute to the progress (or retardation) or decline of any civilization are myriad and largely circumstancial and have little or nothing to do with what I call character (as in the national character) but which you prefer to call philosophy."
Sigh. The only one reading this that seems to believe their is a 'Karma' argument here is you. And if what you are saying is true I have no idea why we bother to study any civilization for any reason. Yes, the rise and fall of nations is chaotic and complicated. NO, that doesnt mean some factors arent FAR more impactful than others, nor that they cant even be studied or quantified. One gets the feeling you desperately wish it were so, if only to kill this uncomfortable line of thought.
" You claim it is a choice, but I would claim that how one thinks is generally a cultural product and not an individual choice."
In that case I suppose no civilization is responsable for anything it does. We owe the Nazis a big apology.
"I will leave with the final thought that geographic location & natural resources have more to do with the rise and fall of civilizations than treatment of women."
The Middle East had worlds more wealth due to its location and resources than Europe ever did. And yet Europe was overtaking the Islamic world technologically, scientifically, economically, militarilly, and culturally before the first gold ship ever returned from the New World. Your argument again stands on its head- the Islamic Empire was once strong. Did its geographic location change? Did its resources dry up?
And you may remember it was the success of the reconquest of Spain that allowed Columbus's the ships to sail in the first place. You may not like my argument (which i have only ever claimed is a piece of the puzzle), but what you are offering seems far more full of factual problems. The mighty Islamic Empire that contained the historical powerhouses of Constantinople, Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, and Carthage just couldnt match up to the mighty resources of Norway and Scotland? Ahem. Is there anything you wont claim to avoid laying the tinyest scrap of responsability at the feet of Islamic culture itself?
Mark B.,
Let me try to separate out two distinct historical theories I understand you to be making and that I find faulty.
One is a general proposition. You state flatly that how a civilization treats women is an important factor in assessing that civilization. You also seem to suggest a direct link between treatment of women and technological and cultural advancement, specifying Islamic culture as an example of this general proposition. I don’t think there is much evidence to support this theory and I think there is much against it. I don’t think the ancient Greeks flourished because of their treatment of women and the plains Indians of North America failed to flourish in the same way because of their treatment of women. I just don’t see any commonality among civilizations that did well in this respect, or in societies that didn’t do so well. It’s possible that Islamic civilization is an exception and that, while there is no general rule governing the rise and decline of civilizations due to their treatment of women, it was a factor in the decline of Islamic civilization. While an interesting theory, other than an explanation of how you think it has held back one particular civilization, you haven’t offered any evidence of your general theory.
The other theory you are offering and the one against which I first entered this thread to argue is that Islamic civilization somehow flamed out around the 11th century AD. I think this if fundamentally and demonstrably false and is a theory that is floating around the backchannels of conservative circles to support the belief that Muslims are inherently bad because of some philosophical flaw at the root of Islam. This flaw is supposedly demonstrated by Islam’s failure to thrive past a certain long-ago point. But this is truly bad---deplorable--history. Islamic civilization has been enormously successful, stretching from western Africa, including parts of Europe, much of Central Africa, and across Asia all the way to the Philippines. Over the course of 14 centuries it has had its ups and downs vis a vis other non-Islamic civilizations. And there is no doubt that over the last 150 years, the West has come to dominate the entire world in a manner that no other civilization has ever come close to doing. But Islam’s failure to dominate the globe, any more than China’s failure, or Hindi failure, or the Aztec's failure, is not a sign of some inherent flaw that prevented it from fulfilling what would otherwise have been its destiny. As great civilizations go, by any measure, Islamic civilization ranks among the greatest in history, measured by its extent, number of adherents, longevity, productivity...really anyway you care to measure it. It thrived for a full 1,000 years before it began to wane in some aspects, but compared to most others, that was a pretty long run to be top dog.
"You state flatly that how a civilization treats women is an important factor in assessing that civilization."
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone worth speaking of who would disagree with that sentiment i think.
"You also seem to suggest a direct link between treatment of women and technological and cultural advancement, specifying Islamic culture as an example of this general proposition."
Not treatment of women. 'Use' of women, for lack of a better term. I fail to understand why you refuse to make that destinction. I dont know how many different ways i can say it.
"I don’t think there is much evidence to support this theory and I think there is much against it."
I've provided a myriad of examples of Western females who have had major positive impacts on their civilizations. You have failed to produce a single Islamic example. Im not sure what you consider evidence at this point.
"I don’t think the ancient Greeks flourished because of their treatment of women and the plains Indians of North America failed to flourish in the same way because of their treatment of women."
Not BECAUSE. We are talking about ONE factor. One factor a great deal of relativity built in. What is with this absolutism? Here- one reason the Greeks and Romans flourished was that, despite being oppressed by any modern comparison, their women were allowed to be RELATIVELY useful to their societies. Is that realy a controversial statement?
Lets expand your argument to its logical conclusion- look at the current civilizations from a historical perspective. Are you comfortable saying that the current Islamic states and civilizations failures are unrelated to their lack of liberation of women? What does that say about women?!
My point is the RELATIVE utility of 50% of a society has an impact on the success of that civilization. If the 15th Century Europeans made use of (say) 15% of their women's potential productivity, and the Islamic Empire made use of 0%... your saying it makes no difference to that cultures viability? How is the burden of proof on me with this outrageous claim?
"I think this if fundamentally and demonstrably false and is a theory that is floating around the backchannels of conservative circles to support the belief that Muslims are inherently bad because of some philosophical flaw at the root of Islam."
And this is the strawman you've been fighting this entire thread so desperately. YOU are the only one engaging the idea that 'Muslims are bad'. The automatic PC defenses are flailing when a (non-Western) society is in any way judged or examined.
Look- we talk all the time about how Roman apathy led to their downfall, or Greek infighting, or a thousand other cultural reasons a Western civilization failed. But to even suggest that the Islamic culture is failing largely due to a cultural (note i didnt say moral) reason is completely unreasonable!
You also suggest it isnt fair to single out Islamic society over such a timespam. But there is one very unique aspect of Islam that simply isnt found in any other major religion- Islam is irrevecably, inherintly, completely tied to both government and society. That is its Reason de Entre. Their is absolutely no concept of 'Give onto Caesar' in Islamic culture- Islam is more than a religion (in the Western sense), it is a guide to how to run society in every facet. Thats why it tenets will needsbe so directly tied to the outcome of its cultures.
You simply can't examine a Muslim nation without examining how Islam has impacted its government, its culture, its technological advance, its treatment of citizens. Its impossible to seperate them, BY DESIGN. That is what Islam IS. And i am not venting on Islam, ask any Muslim or scholar if what i am saying is true. I happen to respect Islam for this unique aspect, but it does make it extremely important and relevant that those tenants are correct and healthy. And hence we must study them. Burying our heads under a multicultural pillow and sticking our fingers in our ears because it is a tenant of PC not to judge other cultures like this simply isnt helpful.
Mark B.,
we just keep talking past each other and misunderstandng each other. You may have some respect for Islam, but I don't at all. My point of view has nothing to do with what you call PC or multiculturalism. I have a profound personal DISLIKE of Islam. But in thinking about or talking about history, it seems to me you repeatedly make the mistake of comparing the modern West with Islam as though those are the ONLY two civilizations and that they are is some sort of direct psudeo-Darwinian struggle with each other.
I frequently do not address some of you points because I am more eager to make the ones that I view as relevant and I think the gap between us widens as we each press different cases. Let me try to change that for a moment.
I fully appreciate that your theory says that women-treatment (or use, as you are now calling it [see your #17 and #21, for intial use of "treatment"]) is not the sole factor in rise/decline and that it is AMONG factors. It's just that I dispute this. You keep naming Western woman and referring to the absence of Islamic woman as important players in history. But I know of no important women who aided in the rise of Greek civilization, or Egypitian civlization (pre-alexander) or early Mesopatamian civ, or virtually any other civilization except the Modern West. From this I conclude that the exclusion/inclusion of women doesn't play a significant role in the advancement of civilization HISTORICALLY.
I further think you are exagerating the extent to which women are NOT used in Islamic civilization, which by the way is not quite the same in Malyasia as it is in Morrocco, just at Turkey differs from Nigeria or the Andulusians differed from the Sultan of Timor.
I think I fully addressed the issue of the size of the talent pool not seeming to have much impact upon the relative development or lack thereof of various civs in #29.
What you call the current failure of Islamic states is only a failure RELATIVE to the success of the West and no I don't think the differences about how women are treated/used plays a significant role in the difference between the two. That doesn't say anything about women, one way or the other, except that they are the same as men in this regard. Socieity would no more or less flourish here if we failed to allow women full access than if we failed to allowed full access to anyone whose last name began with the letters M through Z.
The real problem with the East-West, or secularism/Christianity-Islam, divide is that for a hundred years or so a primitive tribal society has been given a grossly excessive importance in the world by an accident of geology.
Consider how important the South-West of Asia, including Arabia and Persia, would be without oil. Not at all - the West would still be regarding them as faintly amusing barbarians with some quaint customs, including killing each other for trivial reasons at the drop of a hat and rubbing their faces in the sand five times per day while facing a rock.
Therefore it seems to me that the long-term way to solve the problem of jihad is to make them once again irrelevant. We know how to do that - all that is needed is the will.
Absent that, the problem will eventually be solved in the same way as was the problem of Japan - but ten thousand times worse.
#39 from mark: "You keep naming Western woman and referring to the absence of Islamic woman as important players in history. But I know of no important women who aided in the rise of Greek civilization, or Egypitian civlization (pre-alexander) or early Mesopatamian civ, or virtually any other civilization except the Modern West. From this I conclude that the exclusion/inclusion of women doesn't play a significant role in the advancement of civilization HISTORICALLY."
Egypt was the best place in the ancient world to be a woman (according to my old achient history teachers, and with the proviso that there is no good civilization if you are right at the bottom of the social pyramid), and Egypt got good value out of its women, to mention only one of its greatest pharaohs, Hatshepsut. (Sure she was an exception, but so was Maggie Thatcher. She ruled, in every sense.)
This might be one reason why Egypt did reasonably well for a long time, despite being conservative in other respects.
Fletch,
"Consider how important the South-West of Asia, including Arabia and Persia, would be without oil. Not at all - the West would still be regarding them as faintly amusing barbarians with some quaint customs, including killing each other for trivial reasons at the drop of a hat and rubbing their faces in the sand five times per day while facing a rock."
Without oil, I'm not sure the West would be in much of a position to regard anyone as faintly amusing. We'd all be too busy washing coal dust off our faces.
mark, you must think that coal combustion technologies haven't evolved since the Victorian age. But I know for a fact that reality is very different.
FabioC., I wasn't think so much about dust from burning coal as, in a world w/o oil, how many of us would be digging for it.
World without oil? So there is no oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, the North Slope of Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma, Nigeria and Russia?
I submit that the world would be a great deal better were it not for the fact that Dark Ages barbarians hold at least a third of the world's oil supply. Or, given the fact that they do, if oil were irrelevant and eminently replaceable.
One way to arrange the latter gives us living room for trillions and enough resources to plate the USA a metre deep in steel as bonuses.
#45 from Fletcher Christian at 2:56 am on Jun 03, 2007
I submit that the world would be a great deal better were it not for the fact that Dark Ages barbarians hold at least a third of the world's oil supply. Or, given the fact that they do, if oil were irrelevant and eminently replaceable.
_______________________________________________________________
I submit that the World would be a lot better off without mindless name calling trying t be passed off as intelligent opinion.
***************************************************************
One way to arrange the latter gives us living room for trillions and enough resources to plate the USA a metre deep in steel as bonuses.
_______________________________________________________________
A lot depends on what you call "living".
I don't know TOC, Fletcher may not have put it terribly diplomatically, but he is essentially correct. Without oil (and by that I mean if the West and particularly America didn't need oil to maintain our standard of living, not to say to survive) the Middle East is an anthropology project for Western university students. Study the primitives in their natural habitat sort of thing.
TOC, just read The High Frontier if you can find it - and if your mind is not completely closed.
It is perfectly possible to arrange rather comfortable living conditions in a space habitat. Of course, the conditions in the early years would be pretty spartan - but what were living conditions like in the early days of the "colonisation" of America? At any rate, the conditions would be a damn sight better than those in downtown Los Angeles - in that the atmosphere wouldn't contain poison gas. And the commute would be minutes, not hours.
To quote just one resource available - there is a fusion reactor that is already working, has been working for four and a half billion years withour refuelling or maintenance, will work for another five billion more and has an output power of four hundred trillion terawatts.
All we have to do is go out there and build the collectors. We should. And never, under any circumstances whatsoever, let any of the barbarians into space.
Make oil irrelevant - and let them find out whether crude oil is edible.
Fred, I didn't want to be diplomatic. The time to be diplomatic with or about people who brutally suppress half their population, blow themselves up on transport and in crowded city streets, decapitate schoolgirls for the crime of being Christian and blow up millennium-old, completely irreplaceable monuments (I could add more) is well and truly over.
#47 from Fred at 5:08 pm on Jun 05, 2007
Without oil (and by that I mean if the West and particularly America didn't need oil to maintain our standard of living, not to say to survive) the Middle East is an anthropology project for Western university students. Study the primitives in their natural habitat sort of thing.
********************************************************************
I suppose you also wonder why we are increasingly detested through our the World. I have lived in 5 different countries including Mexico, Italy, Trinidad, Australia and have done business extensively in Asia and Europe.
I have never seen our stock lower in the eyes of the rest of the world. Much of it comes from this attitude. We have a foreign Policy that is based on fear, condescension and ignorance.
I tell my Democratic friends the reason they lose presidential elections is that they look down their noses at people in the center of the country from the Northeast and Los Angeles and wonder why the same people do not vote for them when election time comes.
Had we had a better understanding of the Middle East and Iraq and not thought of them as our inferiors, which is grossly implied in your and Fletcher's posts, we would not be in the catastrophic mess we are in now. Pride cometh before the Fall.
Get your head out of the sand and stop patting yourself on the back. There is a tremendous amount to be learned about the world and denigrating whole areas and peoples is not the way to do it.
#48 from Fletcher Christian at 12:59 am on Jun 06, 2007
I agree with you about Los Angeles, having just passed through the airport a couple of weeks ago. But, I don't think it is much better in other cities these days. I was en route from Vancouver to Mexico City. Mexico City is a disaster and as beautiful as Vancouver is now, I doubt that it will avoid the Los Angeles fate for long.
The Hydrocarbon fed big city model has run its course. It no longer serves the people that live there and is ever more rapidly destroying the environment.. The prospects of living in space are not attractive at all to me. I want to live on Earth. I was designed to live on earth and I am happy living here.
It seems incredulous to me that people continue to buy the Hydrocarbons make you happy pitch. Terrible health problems, destruction of natural systems on a planetary scale, fouling of things that make life worth living, oceans, rivers, flyways, etc., a future of seeming war without end for Oil and we still look for salvation in the Hydrocarbon model.
How far do you think the Money spent on the failed war in Iraq would have gone towards funding alternative energy sources. I read a conservative think tank's recommendation in about 1990 that called for a $10 Billion a year ten year proposal to do just that. The alternative, they said, was endless war in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America to secure supplies. Not a bad prediction as it turns out.
What we have gotten in the U.S. instead is a political culture that blames everyone else for their problems.
Drugs, we shift blame to the producers and never mention the 100 Billion dollar mental health problem we have in the states that fuels the trade.
Oil Shortage, that's the fault of the people who produce the oil. This administration has not come up with a single significant idea on how to wean us from a very self destructive oil habit.
Not only that, we are on the verge of possible the greatest financial opportunities ever offered this country - Global Warming and Water Shortages. Who, other than the U.S. is going to solve these problems. Who other than the U.S. has the capability to create the industries that these problems will demand be created.
What have we heard out of the oligarchs in Washington on these opportunities. Nothing.
I look forward to yet another 15 months of inanities about liberals and conservatives that we have come to call election campaigns. Both words should be expunged from peoples vocabularies, it only gives them an excuse not to think.
TOC:
I was using Los Angeles as a horrible example. But in fact many other cities are pretty awful for pollution. I live on the west coast of England, so pollution is very rarely a problem where I live; the pollution my town creates is blown inland! But several years ago I had cause to visit Manchester, a city of about 750,000, on a sunny summer day. Being not used to breathing vehicle exhaust, my reaction when I stepped out onto the street from a railway station was something like "Do people really breathe this cr*p?" It stank, to someone with a working nose.
You may indeed wish to live on Earth, and that desire is your privilege. Others may desire differently. However, two points; first that unless you are very young you are extremely unlikely to have the choice in your lifetime, and second that those who live in space will help to make it possible for Earth-dwellers not to have to breathe poison gas daily.
And lastly, space colonisation is a way to put some of our eggs in another basket. If we don't get out there, what happens if any one of several civilisation-ending catastrophes happen? Examples: Another Chixculub. A global pandemic (maybe a mutated bird flu?) Solar instability such as a really massive flare. A nanotech plague (grey goo). Runaway greenhouse. And finally, the spectre that is coming yet again out of its grave, given recent events concerning Russia; global thermonuclear war.
"Earth is the cradle of mankind - but one cannot stay in the cradle forever."
this is a great peice of art work and liberty of justice i just love the likeness of your unique presontation its rather internationally warming just one questing tho..
who is the leader of the tribe as i need reasearch on that?? please reply and once again this is a WONDEFULL pece of work thankyou.
love from karkea