Not really at all adaher, there was the anti-British revolt in Iraq in WWII which received some support from Germany and the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem, but that hardly constitues a large Arab bloc. All the Arab countries with the exception of the interior of Saudi Arabia were under the colonial rule of allied powers during WWII.
I would worry a lot more about Arab public opinion if there were a few more free countries where people have access to, first, a real education. Second, something other than just state propaganda TV. And, finally, a TV to watch it on.
Most importantly, people should feel free to express whatever opinion they have, not just the safe anti-American ones allowed to be expressed by the local thug. (Happy B-Day, Saddam!)
And you don’t have a problem with this? :eek: I mean, if George W. Bush stands up next week and says “I’ve decided it’s in the best interests of the United States to invade and annex Australia, and we need to draft every able-bodied adult in the country to go fight in that war,” you’d go along willingly?
In other words, “The United States supports democratic elections in Iran (Iraq), but only if the candidates have policies which are favorable to us.” Sorry, but that’s lip-service in my book.
Democracy is like freedom of speech; you can’t say “I support it, unless _________”, because whatever you put in that blank undermines your claim of support. Limiting democracy to governments you find acceptable is not democracy.
That bang you just heard, ladies and gentlemen, is xtisme shooting himself in the foot.
What’s that got to do with anything? That’s like saying “stealing music with Kazaa is okay because everyone else does it” – it doesn’t change the fact that the act is illegal. Similarly, if the United States government (and specifically, the George W. Bush Administration) is going to stand up before the world and say “We support democracy and free elections,” then you damn well don’t undermine free, democratic elections just because the results displease you.
Maybe, but then the onus of bad karma would be on their shoulders, not ours.
Yeah, like morals and the courage of your convictions, or the lack thereof. You, apparently, don’t have a problem with the United States government lacking these items – after all, as long as the country acts in its best interest, that’s all that matters.
Pardon me for holding my country and my leaders to a higher standard.
Posted by Captain Amazing (in response to Alan Owes Bess:
Actually, you’re both right. The medieval Islamic civilization was very proficient and sophisticated, but not very creative. The Arabs absorbed a lot of knowledge from other cultures – the works of Aristotle and other classical Greeks and Romans; “Arabic” numerals (which were invented in India and transmitted west by the Persians); etc., etc. But they created little that was new. There are some exceptions – original research in chemistry, for instance, and the development of algebra far beyond what the Greeks had achieved, which is why algebra has an Arabic name. (And of course, all that fascinating geometrical art and Arabic calligraphy, which the Muslims had to invent to find an outlet for artistic creativity without actually depicting any humans or animals. But this must be ranked as an afterthought. When it comes to advancing civilization, art is not as important as science.) The general intellectual atmosphere of medieval Islam was usually tolerant, but not encouraging of innovation. At bottom, it was a civilization that believed all ultimate truth was to be found in the Koran and the Hadith. And far too much of that attitude appears to have survived into the modern era in practically all Muslim countries.
Of course, Medieval Europe was just as religious and just as closed-minded as medieval Islam, if not more. How did the Europeans outgrow this and embark on an age of invention and innovation and the search for scientific truth, while the Muslims didn’t? Might be a good topic for another thread.
I usually don’t get involved in these types of threads anymore, because they rarely go anywhere constructive … but I would just like to add some clarification here - one of the colonial powers in the ME was clearly not on the Allied side. Namely, the Vichy French who controlled Lebanon and Syria.
There was, in fact, a nasty little sub-war fought against them.
I’ll answer your questions with a question. Is there a western country right now that has recently attacked Iraq, deposed their government, occupied the country, and is now not only controlling their government but also attempting to control how their government will be formed in the future?
This certainly covers whether some Arab anger is related to actual western influence, as well as whether the ME has been subject to more than very little interference, and that’s using only one very recent example. Some people would probably argue that this example covers the colonialialism aspect of your questions, too.
Generally, “the Arabs” first came into contact with European colonialism when Nappy invaded Egypt. At the time, they had already been subject to Mamluck colonialism for some time.
Nappy smashed the Mamlucks, and the French were driven out in turn; thereafter, the 19th century could best be summed up as “Egypt tries to modernize, leading to increasing European influence; eventually, Egypt goes broke, and the Europeans take over”.
In the rest of the ME, the Arabs were subject to hundreds of years of Turkish colonial domination. The Europeans threaten to smash the Turks, but inter-European rivalries prevent this; in WW1, the Turks get crushed by the British.
The Arabs had revolted, with British encouragement - the whole “Lawrence of Arabia” thing. As part of that encouragement, the Brits armed the rebels (who, without help, were in danger of being whipped by the Turks); and made a promise that the Arabs would be granted independance when the fighting was over. This promise they broke; they never intended to keep it. Instead, they carved much of the area between themselves and the French (the Sykes-Picot Agreement). Moreover, they made other promises, such as the famous Balfour declaration.
In fact, the Arab revolt, while brave and romantic, was a side-show - the Turks were crushed by the British. The Brits never considered the Arab revolutionaries as anything other than useful auxiliaries against the Turks. However, the Arabs quite understandably were furious about this betrayal.
After WW1, the British set up a number of different ways to organize their holdings in the ME - mandates like Palistine and kingdoms (Iraq and Transjordan). The last hurrah for Brit colonialism in the area was when the Brits turned the mandate in Palistine over to the new UN after WW2.
Thereafter, the (non-Israel) countries in the region faced the same conundrum facing Egypt in the 19th century - modernize and come under the influence of a European power; or fail to modernize, and fall behind.
The main problem with the ME is not the existence of European colonialism per se, but the inevitable fact that a weak and underdeveloped area is likely to come under either the influence or domination of those more powerful and more developed - and suffer abuse in the process. For example: the Brits cared nothing for their promise to the Arabs, because the Arabs were weak and divided.
So, the real source of blame is - whatever made the area weak in the first place. I myself blame the Mongols, folowed by domination for centuries by steppe warriors in various guises (Mamlucks, Turks).
Why are countries in the area unable to overcome this legacy of relative depravation, now that the Arab countries are more or less independant and have been for fifty years at least? There, we must speculate, remembering always that development from such an unpromising beginning is a really difficult feat. I suspect that centuries of outside domination (Mongols, Turks, Europeans) have created a legacy of seeing all problems of rule as originating outside their own culture. Once this attitude is in place, it is difficult to develop self-criticism (such may be seen as being a sell-out). And self-criticism is vital to progress.
Thus, blaming the European Colonialists is part of a bad pattern, likely to lead to more - not less - European domination. What would help, is if the inhabitants would critique their own societies, and attempt improvements. I think that the latest Arab Human Development Report is at least some proof that this is actually happening.
Another bar to progress is the endless obsession with Israel, which not only diverts much material wealth in the form of arms, but more importantly, adds to the culture of blaming everything on outsiders - Israel and the US.
SimonX, I’m flattered that you thought my statements were significant enough to spawn into a new debate. Sadly, until posting on the SDMB becomes a paying job, I cannot always react to threads of interest to me as soon as I’d like…never mind as soon as you’d like. But I am here, and I do not intend to duck the debate.
I’ll address the points raised in this thread in the next day or so, G-d willing.
;j
No contradiction of myself. I was merely posting and quoting by name Tamerlane an SDMB member who holds views that are, I think, possibly somewhat contrary to mine in that he is a complete Islamophile. I suggest you re-read my post.
Will anyone mention Wahabbism?
True enough.
Hardly. At least if by that you mean an enthusiast of the religion of Islam. In addition to thye little not believing in God problem, I find all Judaeo-Christian faiths to be too stifling for my personal taste.
But I forgive you the mistake, since it is a reasonable inference to make from a partial reading of my posting history.
smiling bandit: Wahabism.
Good enough :p?
Seriously, though - mention them in what aspect? Why did Wahabi Saudi Arabia semi-escape colonialism? Geography, mostly.
- Tamerlane
For your information, I am no more a true believer than you are. Agnostic at 17, atheist at 19. I am completely unworried by Judaism or Christianity. In particular, I know how Christians, in general, Catholic or Non-Catholic, think, and I believe I can handle myself quite adequately in the extremely unlikely event that I am ever in a life or death situation involving one or more fanatical followers of that faith who think they should behead me (an absurd fantasy, I think you’ll agree).
However, I am much less sanguine than you are about that other most gangrenous leg of the unholy trinity, loosely referred to by some academic nitwits as one of the world’s “great” religions.