Why Arabs suffer

What lies at the root of the Middle East's culture of violence? Philip Carl Salzman explains how Bedouin politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociology

Philip Carl Salzman, National Post Published: Friday, January 11, 2008

By modern standards, contemporary Middle Eastern Arab nations are failed societies. On virtually every index of socioeconomic and political development, they compare poorly with other parts of the world.

Under the auspices of the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, an independent group of 20 Arab scholars analyzed the state of Arab human development in a widely-circulated 2002 report. Their findings were stark. In particular, the Arab Human Development Report 2002 found that the 19 nations under study suffer from a "freedom deficit":

"Out of seven world regions, the Arab countries had the lowest freedom score in the late 1990s … The Arab region also has the lowest of all regions for voice and accountability a number of indicators measuring various aspects of the political process, civil liberties, political rights and the independence of the media."

The Arab region not only ranked last on the freedom scale, but the gap between Arab countries and the next-to-last ranked region, Africa, was substantial. The authors also found the Arab world lagged in gender equality, education, Internet use, human welfare and technological development.

"The average output of the Arab world per million inhabitants is roughly 2% that of an industrialized country," the authors noted. "In 1981, the Republic of Korea was producing 10% of the output of the Arab world; in 1995, it almost equalled its output."

In the number of frequently cited scientific papers generated per million inhabitants, Switzerland scored 79.90, the United States 42.99, Israel 38.63. Among Arab nations, Kuwait led the pack with 0.53, followed by Saudi Arabia with 0.07, Egypt at 0.02, and Algeria at 0.01.

more

Well, that's a good unbiased way to start the discussion.
:sarcasm:

. . topic of his essay.

I do find this article unpleasant for rather the same reasons that I found Arun Gandhi's article unpleasant. The author seems to be implying that there is something *intrinsic* to Arab culture which makes it violent, and blames not those in power, but 'Bedouin' influences.

I'd be similarly uncomfortable if someone blamed ancient 'Anglo-Saxon' or 'Roman' influences for American and British violence in Iraq.

Mind you, the extreme cultural relativists who imply that culture is immutable and that liberalism and secularism and women's rights should not be encouraged as 'they aren't part of Muslim/Arab/ African/ etc. culture' are not as many million miles away from this author's attitude as they may like to think.

My own suggestion is that one major reason for violent conflict in and between Arab countries is that many of them have fallen headlong into the trap of theocracy and associated far-RW politics. As someone who thinks that non-RW is better than RW, wherever it is, I think it would IMO be better if they changed this current aspect of their culture, though this is ultimately up to them - just like the changes that Britain or America may choose to make in their cultures. But I don't think that this is inevitable due to 'tribal influences' any more that Europaean violence (common and severe 60 to 100 years ago; less common and severe now) is inevitable due to our own tribal histories. That way lie racism and self-fulfilling negative prophecies, which just fuel endless conflict.

. . the article. I think you don't like the conclusionas and are therefore reaching to cast the article as racist.

If it was "inevitable" there would be little reason to write the article. The guy's an anthropologist speaking about his field of inquiry.

And they have become the worlds 4th largest arms exporter to insure that :eyes:

But slandering Israelis is propaganda. What could be clearer?

not an appropriate location for Israel: slander of the whole Middle East, slander of the citizens of Israel, slander of the government of Israel, or none of the above?

The President of Iran suggested that Israel should have been established somewhere in Europe. However, I haven't heard of any negotiations between Iran and any government of a country in Europe to even begin considering actually setting aside some land in Europe. After all, even if every citizen of Israel volunteered to move away, there wouldn't necessarily be anywhere to go. Meanwhile, there are problems regarding availability of fresh water. I'm not convinced that -- disregarding the security issues -- the land of Israel could absorb all Palestinian refugees and their descendants, while continuing to provide a home for all current citizens of Israel.

Although I am aware of various things Ahm-an-idjit has said, I try to ignore drivel like that. The day is too short as it is.

but even more alarming are the statistics, which are stark.

. . in the two articles and we'll see. You could be right but I didn't notice anything.

Maybe you'll come up with something later.

In the meantime I'd like to add a thought. You have several times said that all RW ideology is wrong and that you despise those like Pipes and Stein who espouse RW views.

I have tried to point out that views should be judged by their content - on their merits according to liberal principles - and not judged by their label or the political persuasion of the person who promotes them.

Now I ask you, which of us has a more bigoted view? Which of us the more (classically) liberal view?

I admit that on reflection I must have to some degree amalgamated this article in my mind with the only other article by this author that I have recently read:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/10/philip-carl-salzman-muhammad-s-tribe.aspx

*That* article puts more emphasis on the idea of ancient cultural roots for violence in Arab states than the one you quote. What I am referring to, in any case, is the idea that the Middle East has a culture of violence, and the West doesn't, or at least much less; and that this is all down to the culture. This did remind me a bit of the other statement that 'Israel and the Jews' are the 'biggest players' in the culture of violence.

There is a potential for culture of violence *anywhere*, and it doesn't take that much to set it off. Right now, there probably isn't anywhere in the West that compares with the Middle East in level of violence (or at least violence between close neighbours - the war on Iraq was certainly violent on our part, as well as precipitating internal violence on theirs). But in the 90s, there were truly dramatically awful things going on in the former Yugoslavia. There was a persistent culture of violence in Northern Ireland. And of course there was truly horrible violence in Europe during the first half of the 20th century, culminating in the Holocaust and WW2. Ancient cultural roots cannot explain things that have changed dramatically in the last 10 or 15 years - or even 60 or 70 years. I think such roots often are there but that they explain the *details* of the specific causes of violence, and the form that the violence takes, more than the tendency toward violence itself - which is sadly universal.

The Middle Eastern countries are currently undergoing a period of intensely unpleasant politics; and for the most part are not pre-modern but reactionary. The Muslim fundamentalism that many are embracing was not always so extreme in most of these countries; they have chosen to reject modern ways and attitudes and to 'go back to traditional values' in an ultimate and frightening sense.


'I have tried to point out that views should be judged by their content - on their merits according to liberal principles - and not judged by their label or the political persuasion of the person who promotes them.

Now I ask you, which of us has a more bigoted view? Which of us the more (classically) liberal view?'

I don't think either of us is bigoted. We may both be BIASED, yes. Most people are. I don't think I have EVER called either you, or any other poster on this forum, bigoted. I may have called various politicians and writers bigoted. But not posters on the forum. And no, I don't think that, short of pointing people to National Vanguard, quoting people whom I dislike, makes a poster bigoted.

But on the issue you mention: I *do* believe that ideas don't occur in a vacuum. People, who are right-wing, generally create and push their ideas to promote a right-wing agenda - and to me, all right-wing agendas are intrinsically evil; some might call that biased or even bigoted, but it is my view. It may sometimes be that people are right-wing on some issues and not others (so that someone who is right-wing on foreign policy may not pursue a right-wing agenda on economic or environmental issues, and vice versa); and it may also be that a right-winger *may* hold a specific view that happens to be valid outside a right-wing agenda. For example: Ahmadejinad, an extreme right-winger, thinks that Bush is a nasty man and that his war is a bad thing. I also think that Bush is a nasty man and his war is a bad thing. But I would not use Ahmadejinad as a valid source for this view. This is not just a matter of "Ahmadejinad is evil, so I'm not quoting him!" It is more that Ahmadejinad appears to come to the right conclusion ('Bush is bad') for the wrong reasons ('All rivals for power, and all foreigners - especially Westerners - are bad'.)

You may disagree with me about the extent to which a person's political ideas can be divorced from their actual agenda. But are you sure you don't share *some* of these biases? Would you really think that Ahmadejinad is exactly as valid a source of information on the evils of Bush as (name your preferred liberal politician or journalist)? Even if you happen to agree with both that Bush IS a bad leader?

Not that I see too many targets that I could easily attack - but that you have said so many things that confound me. I'm interested in seeing where some of this leads. I could well be wrong - I don't know. Let's try this one.



A period of intensely unpleasant politics? Is that like a phase they are going through that is worse than their usual uplifting and more honorable politics? I've been reading up on Islamic history and I am having a hard time finding a period when most of the Arab Muslim world was not deeply immersed in the "balanced opposition" form of politics that Salzman describes. And the greatest part of that "balanced opposition" starting with Mohammed's slaughter of the infidels in Mecca was augmented by swords, guns and explosives.

As he says in the earlier essay,



It seems to me that Islam is a very conservative religion that protects itself by conserving its traditions - the most fundamental being the requirement that the unbelieving world submit to Islam. Here's an excerpt from another scholarly study on the topic that is very interesting historically.



I'd like to get your response to this before I go further.

not that Islamic theocracy and violence never existed in the past, but that modern Islamism appears to be to a large extent a reactionary movement.

In the past, many religious groups ran theocracies, and considered holy war/crusades/jihad and the persecution of heretics to be justifiable. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Christians as a group gradually became less theocratic and more inclined to separate 'church and state' - though not all Christians, and not everywhere (and there are plenty of people who would love to re-impose Christian theocracy - but probably not enough to be able to do so). But 20th-century far-RW Western political movements tended to involve not religion, but quasi-religious secular ideologies, such as Nazism, fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. (N.b. I do of course realize that Stalinism and Maoism were economically left-wing; but they were far-RW from the point of view of the present discussion - quasi-theocratic; crushing dissent; attempting to impose ideology on others at gunpoint; persecuting heretics and minorities.) By contrast, Muslim far-RW political movements have directly involved religious fundamentalism in the true sense.

It is my understanding that for some time up till the early 20th century, Muslim powers - mainly meaning the Ottoman empire at that time - were pretty RW and violent in the same way as *all* imperialist rulers have tended to be; but much less fundamentalist or theocratically oppressive than the Islamic revolutionary movements of more recent times. Similarly, recent rulers ranging from the Shah of Iran to Saddam Hussein were nasty dictators in their own right, but were *not* theocrats, unlike those who replaced them through revolution (1970s Iran) or vacuum caused by war and externally imposed regime change (Iraq now). These Islamic revolutionary movements were a reaction against colonialism in the early 20th century, and to some degree against American power in the later 20th century. Though they were revolutionary in the anti-colonialist sense, they tended to be reactionary in all others. They often wished to go back to a real or legendary long-ago time where religious absolutism ruled supreme; and to crush decadent 'foreign' secularism. In this, they were reactionary, and not 'business as usual'

Here is some discussion of the matter, by a very interesting writer, Ali Eretaz, a liberal Muslim:

www.commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/09/the_islamic_reformation.html

www.commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/10/an_islamic_counterreformation.html


It seems to me that the issue is not that Islam is itself more conservative/ RW than Catholicism or Protestantism or Orthodox Judaism or Hinduism, but that all religions are RW when they turn into theocracy and especially when they become excessively mixed with nationalism - and that while most religions have become *less* associated with theocracy in recent times, Islam has become *more* so. There might be interesting explanations for this fact, and in finding such explanations, one would probably have to also examine why recent Western extremist movements have tended to involve quasi-theocratic imposition of political ideology as something akin to a religion, more than religion itself. In any case, I suspect that the reasons are to be found more in political and religious history of the last 100 years or so, than in very ancient cultural roots.

Seem the caliph ideology is still very much alive and well (and growing in influence and following)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0122/p01s03-wome.html

"Founded in Jerusalem by a Palestinian-Jordanian judge more than 50 years ago – and once considered a quiet if quirky religious group with a utopian vision of returning to a time when the Muslim world was united – Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is now filling a hole left by Hamas in the West Bank.

In interviews here in the West Bank, its leaders and followers say they're winning the hearts and minds of millions with a purer idea: the reestablishment of one united Islamic rule under a caliphate, roughly translated as a successor to the prophet Mohammad.

We accept only Islam in politics and in vision. And we have a powerful secret: to keep out Western ideas and keep to a pure Islamic system," Professor Jabari, who teaches chemical engineering at a college here, explains in an interview in his sprawling, freshly furnished home here in Hebron, a conservative city where Hizb ut-Tahrir's support appears to be among the strongest in the West Bank."

"We accept only Islam in politics and in vision. And we have a powerful secret: to keep out Western ideas and keep to a pure Islamic system," Professor Jabari, *who teaches chemical engineering at a college* here, explains.

How sad that a *science teacher* would be seeking to 'keep out (bloody foreigners') ideas'; revert to a time centuries ago; and advocate pure religious fundamentalism. Just shows that these views should not be seen as *pre*-modern but as *anti*-modern and reactionary.

I hope he is seen as too whacko to gain real power.

Xenophobia - the hallmark of all Far Right organizations, only varying in who are the current targets. It can be racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, religious bigotry against atheists; in this case, it takes the form of what might be called 'Westernophobia'.

. . that I find unsettling - is the notion that any discussion of differences in cultures is racist.

First, culture is not genetics.

Second, culture is often the single greatest factor in determining why people start wars against other people. Describing any discussion of such topics as "racist" means that we are left with talk about the "other" reasons why people go to war - such as in this case where it is said to be "caused by the occupation". Such failure to face reality can lead to situations where such wars continue for generations with no hope of resolution. Does that remind you of something?

I think its entirely possible to discuss cultural differences that are relevant to the cause of wars without condemning the individuals in that society in any way. Average citizens have little power to change their culture - and that is especially true in totalitarian religious societies. Only when their leadership embraces the need for such change will there be any possibility of that.

At the same time, the I/P war in the ME will only end when Arabs stop attacking Jews and stop trying to destroy them and their state. That will require a cultural change.

I am a proud liberal and I say these words not as an outsider but in hopes of bringing US liberalism back to a more sane worldview.

blatantly anit-Semitic statement? I certainly would. And I would condemn such a statement.

But perhaps one who said such a thing might protest such censure and argue:

1. But the evidence is overwhelming that Jack Abramoff is a crook

2. There is certainly no denying that Jack Abramoff is in fact a Jew

3. The statement in no way whatsoever says that ALL Jews are crooks -- -- only one person who just happens to be Jewish - Jack Abramoff

4. In fact this particular statement does not even - in and of itself attack Jewish culture or the Jewish faith

In fact the simple statement, "Jack Abramoff is a crooked Jew" is pretty much a true and factual statement and does not directly attack Jews in general at all. So what's the problem?

BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

Such a statements like "Jack Abramoff is a crooked Jew", or "O.J. Simpson is black savage" are said in way to tie in a crass racist stereotype to a whole people that seeks to demean, berate and marginalize a people as a people.

I would agree that it is not racist in and of itself to critically examine a culture, religion or political arrangement. And I would have to agree that large parts (but by no means all) of the Arab world are still somewhat tribal. I've lived in it a good deal of my life. I should know.

But when cultural critique is rooted in deep disrespect and carried out with a political agenda and in total disregard of how cultural difference are perceived from the inside - this is racist, no matter how some sophist try to spin it. When emotionally charged language of established racist stereotypes are employed in a manner that inspires people to reject a rationally based understanding of grievances and perceived grievances of the victims of these stereotypes - this is racist.

When people are unwilling or unable to subject their own cultures to the same level of self-scrutiny that they insist on imposing on others - this is racist.

When the conclusions of the critique are already well established before the critique even begins - this is at least prejudice (pre-judicial) and likely racist.

I would suggest a very simple rule of thumb in determining whether or not something is legitimate critique or a racialist or bigoted comment --try substituting the group under scrutiny with another group and see how it sounds. If it sounds racist. It probably is racist.

When ones' sole interest in another culture to use bits and pieces of twisted half-truths and established stereotypes as a weapon of attack against a people as a people -- that is certainly racist.

And finally when comments totally disregard how the "other" actually thinks and relies exclusively on what one presumes the other thinks.. . without even attempting to find out where they are really coming from -that is indeed both racist and ignorant.

It is simply ludicrous to suggest that a little disclaimer that one is not talking about the genetics - only the culture - makes blatant and obvious racism into non-racism. If Goebbels had opened his propaganda with that disclaimer, would his propaganda have been any less racist?

And certainly language that equates a people whether Jews, Arabs, or anyone else to an infection -- EXACTLY like Goebbels did with his "rats" film - this is both profoundly racist and ignorant to chilling levels - like for example:

"Ridding a body of an infection can be painful. From the standpoint of the infection the idea is to destroy the body. Eventually, one will win and one will lose. I'm generally pro-body and anti-infection when it comes to defenders vs aggressors. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=196904&mesg_id=197206

.

. . your own ideas, coherently expressed. This is something I can really read and understand what your point is.

As to the content, you have written a short essay on some aspects of racism that I largely agree with. Then you tack a quote of my words to the end as if to imply that those words fall under your description in some self-evident way. It would have been helpful if you had explained exactly how my words satisfied your definition of racism - which I think was the point you were going for.

As it is I have to guess. You are not giving me much of a chance to defend myself which I suspect is your intention. My guess is you thought to be more specific but then realized there is no obvious connection - so you left it as an implication and hoped maybe no one would notice.

If you read the two posts prior to that one you will see that I was responding to oberliner's question regarding targeted assassination. I stated that I thought it was justified. Oberliner replied that it seemed that Hamas had been energized by it. His last sentences before my reply that you think is racist, were:

"Has the current policy been effective? It seems as if the capabilities of Hamas have actually increased."

I answer, ""Ridding a body of an infection can be painful. From the standpoint of the infection the idea is to destroy the body. Eventually, one will win and one will lose. I'm generally pro-body and anti-infection when it comes to defenders vs aggressors."

Now, are you still willing to suggest that that was a racist statement? Apparently the mods did not think so as I assume you alerted on it if you thought it was racist.

I used "infection" as a metaphor to describe Hamas' motivations and their continuous low level but unrelenting attacks on the citizens of the much larger and better armed Israel. The comment had absolutely nothing to do with Arabs or Palestinian culture much less any racial characteristics. There was no mention of culture or ethnicity in any of the posts leading to this one nor in this one. It had to do with a poorly armed body of militants that are trying to destroy a much larger society through violence. In fact in that sentence I even decoupled the metaphor from any specific agents - I made the point using the general terms "defenders" and "aggressors".

I think you are looking for any possible excuse to attack me. I used a word, "infection", that had I applied it to Palestinian culture generally might have been interpreted as racist depending on how I used it. But I did not do that or anything close to it. So you left your accusation as an implication hoping that no one would notice the actual context. But I do appreciate the style of this post, without the usual long list of barely related links to people you agree with.

. . giving your argument as much weight as possible, the sentence preceding the one you say is racist was,

"If Israel ended the occupation, allowed unlimited right of return and paid billions in compensation - I suspect there would be fewer Palestinians trying to kill Jews."

If I had been more careful I would inserted a paragraph break there. But, that sentence was in response to oberliner's previous statement,

"The policy seems to have the effect of pushing more Palestinians to embrace a violent ideology vis-a-vis Israel, rather than one of peaceful co-existence and reconciliation."

I think if you look at it again you will see that is obviously my intention. Without the para break and without the context I can see how someone could see a possibility for bigotry in there - so your point is not entirely unfounded.

Oberliner raised two questions. I answered them in one paragraph. I was careless.

For the record, I will state here categorically that my intention was not to refer to Palestinians as an infection.

????

the question of why they are what they are is the question to be answered, pretending they dont exist is nothing less than stuiped. I dont agree that its due to any "right wing...nor do i believe trying to discover the reason is racist....

something is going on within the arab/islamic/middle east culture/history that creates such figures. It maybe that their way of life doesnt require books, freedom of speech, civil rights etc and either we accept their version of a modern society or not....

but i'm an ethnocentric western liberal who believes all people should have civil rights....all of them, and that means finding out what is the cause in those cultures and changing them to fit modern liberal civil rights oriented western values.

There are many people who protect tribal, racist, homophobic, mysogynistic regimes, due to "cultural differences"

I think it is ridiculous that we can't question those cultural differences, or even criticize them, because it is politically incorrect to do so. Isn't an educated, liberal culture that allows women, gay people, etc. rights superior to the alternative?

I still think the article is racist though.

. . I wanted to clarify a couple of things.

I do not for one minute think that any Arab person is inherently better or inherently worse than any Jewish person or a person of any other ethnicity in this world. On the other hand I believe there are differences in culture that are important to understand when analyzing things like wars and attacks by one culture or society on the people of different cultures and societies - or the abuse of some members of its own society.

Cultural beliefs are things we learn. We are not born with them. Beliefs can change - both for individuals and societies. Our own culture is vastly different from my grandparents' culture in many ways - and in other ways it is the same.

I generally and genuinely admire other cultures. I love to travel and I've been to several other countries. I have not been to any Arab majority countries but I have had friends who were from those countries and so I've had some small exposure to (some) Arab culture. All foreign cultures I have experienced in any way had interesting and admirable qualities that are different from my own. My own culture has many destructive qualities that I am critical of.

An honest discussion of these differences in no way is an attempt on my part to demean anyone. But there are cultural differences worth discussing. In fact, some moderate Arabs are starting to speak out about these things. They sometimes judge their own cultures more critically than I would. The first step in cultural change is realizing that there may be some aspects of one's own culture that are self-destructive and likely to cause suffering and unhappiness. Such changes can not be imposed from outside.

I admire the ideas expressed in the US Bill of Rights. I think that societies that don't embrace something similar need to be exposed to other possibilities and need to be told if and when the rest of the world thinks they are abusing their own citizens. Societies that don't generally abuse their own citizens are not as likely to attack the citizens of another society.

Discussing these things openly is not racism - though it could be. I am pretty sure that my own motives here are not racist or bigoted. I say "pretty sure" because such attitudes are emotions - not words - and it's difficult to be objectively aware of one's own emotions. But I try to be on the guard for that at all times as far as my own beliefs are concerned. I have no hatred or fear or distaste of any people I meet based on their ethnicity. I do believe that some cultural beliefs are destructive and lead to war and the death of innocent people - and create much unhappiness in the world. In fact, racism is probably the most common of those.

Discussing cultural beliefs honestly and condemning racism - is a necessary first step toward creating more freedom and happiness in the world and less oppression and abuse. I'm in favor of that because I am a liberal.

An added thought: Almost the whole of Martin Luther King's life (and death) was an amazing struggle to change the destructive racist aspects of American culture. Don't you you think that was a good thing? (Actually I'm sure you think that was a good thing. Why do you think this article is racist?)

False and inconsistent heuristics with a lot of racist symbolics. Comes across almost like a reading of the Bell Curve.

L-

. . the article is based on.



I admit that I'm not familiar enough with such studies to critique them too well. Since you are criticizing the science rather than the article maybe you could point out a false heuristic or two in the study and maybe even some racist symbolics so I'll know what you're talking about. I'd have to say that from my admittedly unscholarly reading of the report it seems to be extremely carefully prepared.

Here's the pdf http://www.nakbaonline.org/download/UNDP/EnglishVersion/Ar-Human-Dev-2002.pdf

The use of a single set of data points out of context to make sweeping comments is extremely poor science. In addition, to this red herring, Dr. Salzman's makes a few other logical fallacies to justify his real thesis that Arab society and Islam itself are failures and inferior. A lot of this same type of tortured logic is present in the Bell Curve to justify the failure and inferiority of Black culture.

Having stumbled upon this discussion and having had my interest piqued by it.

When a thing is being described as backward or inferior, it can only be considered so relative to some other thing, and so it is well to establish what standard is being employed, since obviously, different standards will yield different results.

One of my favorite standards for human political and social arrangements is that of longevity and stability. By this standard, probably the supreme success in human history is Imperial China, which preserved a basic political structure over a span of some two thousand years, and a basic cultural stream for perhaps twice that length of time, in broadly recognizeable form. By this standard also, it is quite impossible yet to say whether the modern West is superior or inferior, as it simply has not lasted long enough for judging the question. The most generous estimate would give it perhaps six hundred years, during which it has displayed tremendous instability in its political and social arrangements.

Societies without much political structure beyond tribal allegiance gain very high marks for longevity, as the pattern is unquestionably the most ancient of forms, and wherever it is encountered in the present always stretches back into the most remote reaches of the past, but must be assigned very low marks for stability in terms of the day by day security of its constituents. This instability, however, is an essential element of such a society's longevity, as it is the constant jostling of its diminutive political units that maintains the stability of the cultural and social whole containing these units. Unlike the instability displayed by the modern West, which has altered out of all recognition political and social and even moral arrangements of its society over the course of its run to date, the instabilities within a cultural and social whole with political organization based on tribal identities act to conserve its original practices and mores, and pass these down the years with very little change.

A society with a strong centralized political organization is far more susceptible to change than a society without such arrangements. While such a society can marshal great resources to resist change, should that be the will of its ruler, should the ruler's will be otherwise, those resources can as easily be marshaled to compel change. Such a society is also vulnerable to capture entire as a unit, if an invader or rebel can manage to take over its central institutions more or less intact, and wield them to its own desires, the Manchu 'conquest' of China, and the earlier rebellion establishing the Ming dynasty, being perfect examples.

A society that lacks strong centralized political institutions can never be changed by a word, since no one is in position to give such a word, or can be, unless he or she has succeeded in so impressing the whole of the society, by whatever means, as to compel the personal allegiance and obedience of all its variegated chieftains. In such instances, the unity concentrated in the person of such a leader seldom survives that leader's death, since there will have not been time in the span of a single life to create either the habit of obedience to a central authority, or the politicaL structures to compel it. Two perfect examples of this are Genghis Khan of the Mongols and Mohammed of the Arabs. Each managed to weld a tribal society into a political unit loyal to his person, and in each case after his death this political unit dissolved into the original fractionated state in a short space of time.

Foreign conquest of such a society differs little from the rise of a unifier within it. Both will be accomplished in detail, tribal unit by tribal unit; both will exploit existing fractures between tribal units, and take on the aspect of civil war accordingly; both will benefit greatly by some awe-inspiring element in the rising power, whether it is some decisive advantage of military skill or organization or tools, or personal charisma, or ideology. The consolidation phase will usually differ, of course. The foreign conqueror will exploit success in a different manner, and probably encounter more residual resistance, but even here, both foreign conqueror and internal unifier will raise a favored strata composed of their earliest and staunchest allies, and break to dust their longest and staunchest opponents. The favored strata raised by the conqueror will be his administrators and hostages for profit from and good behavior in their districts; the favored strata raised by the internal unifier will share the profits and constitute the leading factions that will fall to quarreling on the death of the leader and destroy what political unity he or she managed to impose while alive. The foreign conqueror will have no particular desire to alter the subjugated people's social arrangements, wanting only a steady revenue stream from them; the internal unifier will be unable to bring about a great deal of permanent change in their social arrangements, even if this is what he or she desires.

Mohammed certainly wrought a permanent alteration in one element of the social arrangement of the Arabs, namely their religious arrangements, but on reflection there is less to this than meets the eye. The substitution of Christianity for the 'civic religion' of Rome, for example, did not alter much about the character of the Empire, beyond what body of clerics wielded sacred authority. It remained an engine for extracting gold and silver from whomever it could, organized in an exploitative pyramid, with established structures of central authority, and maintained by military force. Even the hysterical focus on chastity that marked the latter stages of Christian consolidation there had deep roots in earlier philosophic attitudes towards a dichotomy between spirit and matter, and represents no really new development. Similarly, Islam did not greatly change the structure of Arab society; it simply sanctified the usual practices of the tribal culture, with some small nudges towards an idealized formulation of them in a few fields.

With the passage of time, it seems clear that this had had the effect increasing the resistance of this basically tribal society to change. When a current cultural arrangement becomes invested with sacredness, it gains a much firmer lease on life. Examples can be found in some Christian sects such as the Amish. These people have essentially invested with sacredness the normal routines of life at the time of their forming. Thus, employing an internal combustion engine rather than a team of horses to pull a plow becomes not a practical matter of costs and times and areas and yields, but a religious question of whether or not the new device has sanction from the deity, to which the sect returns the answer, 'No, it does not.' Therefore those born into this sect continue to plow fields with horses, and the man who purchases a tractor is an apostate, a heretic, doing an ungodly thing. No innovation to which the divines of the sect cannot answer 'Yes' when asked if the thing has sanction from the deity may be employed. There may be quarrels over this answer; the sect may split into sub-sects, some of which flourish and some of which do not, but the basic question and answer remains determinative, and the rate of change and innovation is slowed relative to groups that do not have to ask and answer that particular question at all.

Generally, nowadays and here, it is the standards of the modern West by which another social and cultural pattern is adjudged to be backward or inferior, though of course people seldom bother to state so. The standards by which these judgements are made are generally these: first, does the culture employ Western notions of political organization and social arrangements, namely state authority, and assigning great worth to individual conscience and expression and liberty; and second, does the culture place a high value on innovation, whether technical and social and individual, and is it, if it has not developed such innovations as has the West in recent centuries itself, quick to adopt these when they are encountered, and make them their own. Thus, for instance, in the early twentieth century, in the West, Japan was regarded as not nearly so backwards as China, since it met much better at least some of these tests. Nowadays, of course, no one really regards China as backwards in any signifigant sense. No society, however, which still preserves major elements of tribal structure in its arrangements will ever pass muster by these standards, particularly not when these social elements are invested with a quality of sacredness that increases resistance to changing them on purely practical grounds.

"The old ways are best"

“Yet, Experience spake
the old ways are best;
steadfast for steadfast’s sake,
passing the eons’ test”

If it were in my character to worship anything, that thing would be inertia, the guiding spirit of the universe....

In most cases nowadays, you get a good deal more of it than was really wanted. Like a new version of your operating system for example, when your old one was working fine.

It is worth mentioning, in the context of your discussion, that one reason that village cultures do so well over the long haul is that they are less prone to trashing their environment. You can make a good argument that that stability comes from a lack of hubris and what we now would call ambition.

taking an intro to engineering course which basically consisted of the Dean reminiscing about things. But during a discussion about what constituted a good design, he asked everyone what the better engineered car was between a Porsche or a VW Beetle. The point being that the answer depended on what criteria was used to measure success. For some cases it is easy to argue that the Bug is indeed the better car.

As for "failed" societies. Were the Romans a failed society? I don't know as a case could be made that they and their descendants have a continuing influence on today's world.

Regarding centralized political organizations and change, I know what you are saying, but disagree over some of the mechanics. Taking the analogy to businesses, which are pretty much by definition a centralized political body, some are better suited to change than others in spite or despite the leadership. In some cases, the more nimble and successful organizations do not have a charismatic leader who in many cases serve as an impediment to change. What they do have is an internal understanding and will to act as a body for a common goal. The US's retooling during the first few years of WWII into the arsenal of democracy was a profound change that was not accomplished by the will of President Roosevelt, but by the will of the US people. Similarly the efforts of Lenin, Stalin and Mao were unable to effect anything even remotely similar despite many intensive 5 year plans.

Also, as for China's continuity, I wonder if it really is the same or if it is purely a matter of coincidence where the same structure has re-evolved during intermittent periods of chaos - a case of form following function instead of real continuity. Why was China under Sun Yat Sen or Mao was unable to effect significant change while China today under the modern "Communist" leadership capable of so much so fast? My thoughts are the people are willing to accept change when they were unwilling to do so before.

L

It's not an easy topic. Thanks for thoroughly explaining what you mean. That doesn't mean I'll understand it as well as you wrote it but it seems you are saying:

a) Longevity and stability are the proper measures of the success of a society. (Right, the same is true for species that make up societies.)

b) Basic tribal societies can be very stable because the simple structure disperses vulnerability and control (like the internet) and their inherent conservative nature can pass traditions and cultural beliefs on unchanged through many generations. That and finer grained power struggles at the lower levels creates stability - as an emergent property of such tribal cultures.

c) Central authority societies are less stable because they are easily changed by that authority if it wishes - and they usually do, I'd add.

d) Your foreign conquest paragraph pretty much described the Ottoman rule of tribal Arab Shiekdoms - perfectly.

e) The mention of Roman civic and Christian rule of the empire as a "hierarchical pyramid" optimized for the extraction of gold and silver - reminded me of Amway.

f) Time further cements tribal traditions and feeds the very gratifying emotions of tribal identity. Italics mine.

Before going to your last paragraph, I'll say that you have laid out some valuable insights that I think many in the west don't understand. You have described the immense strength of tribal culture cemented by common values and traditions.

I will expand on that a bit and you may disagree with what follows.

Western culture is the opposite of this. Our culture is that we don't have sacred traditions and common values. We celebrate our freedom to have any religion or none - any values or none - any traditions or none.

And here is what I see are the consequences of what you said and I added. It is much easier for a person who is following a life of tradition much like his father and grandfather and those before them followed and who lives in a society where no-one goes against that on pain of severe punishment - to say that they will gladly die to protect their culture - the only one they have ever known.

And since they have a deep emotional belief that their life as practiced is the only justifiably moral life worth living by any human - it's far easier for them to be willing to die to force others (infidels) to respect and submit to those traditions on pain of death - which is what the Quran asks of its followers, after all.

Killing and dieing evoke the strongest emotions available to humans. Self defense can provide all those emotions instinctively when necessary. But, to attack others (not in desperate self-defense) requires some suitably strong emotional motivation from elsewhere in the mind. Tribal societies have the mechanisms in place and a population that is already sharing those emotions. Tribal customs often include flogging, execution, stoning, torture, etc. These emotions just need to be directed at a sufficiently despised enemy - ideally one that can be seen as wanting to dismantle that tribal culture - modernize them.

Societies like ours (affluent and enlightened) don't possess the emotional equipment. We just want to be free to practice our carpe diem non-cultural culture - and we can't imagine others wouldn't want that too. We can break out of that like 1930's Germany did - but it takes some serious cultural trauma - like (Versaille) and a heavy dose of cultural humiliation to bring forth suitable tribal emotions on that scale. In that sense the holocaust can be seen as an expression of tribal rage directed at the "foreign culture" found in their midst when Hitler and their tribal emotions finally emerged in full bloom in 1939. The Reich was then on a jihad and the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals were the apostates they could get to the easiest. Imposing a new world tribal order (fascism) led by the noble Aryans was the tribal goal - impressively similar in many ways to the global jihad being advocated by Islamists today.

*************************************************

For now I'll quit by saying that IMO we westerners make a serious error in assuming that tribal societies, if given the chance, would cast off their tribal yokes and brutal traditions in favor of being just like us. Remember, "just like us" is elevating "reason" over tradition and having no morality or values that we'd defend with violence much less impose on others. But we're the weirdos in human history. Humans are wired to crave the hot emotions of the tribe. People kill for hate, not for reason. Our enlightened culture is but a temporary and far from perfect respite from the laws of the jungle - a brief candle flicker of a civilization.

So we'll continue to pretend that everybody has essentially the same worldview (our's), that cultures are just mental constructs that can be worn like new fashions, one as good as the next - that all cultures will naturally become like ours aided by their natural "reason" if we just give them a "democracy". (Iraq in a nutshell)

And we'll cling to that narrative because it feels so damned good - and because the truth is way too scary.

Given the lateness of the hour, you may forgive me for addressing only portions of your comments, and saving others for a possible future time.

It seems to me that a major thrust of your argument here in this forum is that the conflict addressed here is not only a clash between tribal and modern Western cultural patterns, but that the very existence of the conflict into the present owes mostly if not solely to the tribal form of one side in it. Further, it seems to me that your characterization of tribal cultures and societies, and contrasts between these and Western cultures and societies, is to some degree tailored to fit this view. Here, we part company.

While the fact that Arab Palestinian society displays elements best characterized as tribal conditions the character of the conflict somewhat, it does not in my view stand as a cause of it. People, whatever their cultural and social forms, resist conquest and displacement. There is nothing to be gained by pretense the establishment of Israel was not a conquest and displacement of people present as inhabitants in the land. This does not strike me as grounds for great condemnation, since it is a routine feature of human behavior throughout the history of our species, but it is certainly a fair characterization, and beyond peradventure the view of it taken by the people at whose expense Israel was established. Like all people, these will act, and can only be expected to act, in accordance with their own perceptions of their situation.

Items like viewing conflict as blood feud or religious duty are not the cause of the conflict but simply weapons for its prosecution; they are mental weapons, if you will. By magnifying the fervor with which combatants act, they enhance their effectiveness just as a physical weapon does, by making them more capable of inflicting harm on the enemy than they could be without that aid. The collective nature of tribal retribution, in which any member of a hostile tribe will do when one of its members has injured one of your own, finds its reflection in targeting, leading to actions that are not in accord with modern Western ideals of a clean divide between combatant and non-combatant, but which seem perfectly proper to those who execute them. It is important to remember in this connection that that modern Western ideal of a clean divide between combatant and non-combatant is, like all ideals, rather muddied in actual practice. You would be the last to deny Israeli military operations do in fact kill a good number of non-combatants, and while the actions that lead to these deaths generally do fall within reasonable readings of the laws of war, and the blunder and mishap war always features, when the smoke has cleared, the people are still dead or maimed, and those near and dear to them filled with raging grief, as would anyone be, formed by whatever cultural norms.

It seems to me a mistake to insist on tribal cultures being marked by brutality, in contrast to modern Western cultures. The latter simply employ specialists, rather than expecting the thing will be done by members of the community who are handy to the task, and those specialists are equiped in a manner that enables them to apply brutal force for coercion or destruction in quantities greatly in excess of the resources of even the most enraged tribal society. The fact that most members of a modern Western society partake of this in no greater degree than paying the salaries of the specialists and the costs of their equipment does not affect the capabilities of the society as whole, or the scale of the effect the specialists achieve when directed to it by that society's governing authority.

. . the most interesting and which were the focus of my comment, I must address this paragraph, which I admit, I find quite surprising from you.



Starting with, "There is nothing to be gained by pretense the establishment of Israel was not a conquest and displacement of people present as inhabitants in the land."

Perhaps you can explain how people immigrating to a stateless territory and buying land to settle on is "a conquest and displacement of people present as inhabitants in the land".

It's possible that I have been duped by a vast rewriting of history, but maybe you have access to some hidden documents that describe this "conquest and displacement" you refer to. You know, the landing on the beachheads by Jews in tanks and APC's destroying Arab villages - the armed Jewish militias throwing Arab families out of their homes and into the streets - the "invasion and conquest" that explains the presence of several hundred thousand Jews in the territory by 1947, living on land they purchased or rented from Arabs.

You say, "Like all people, these will act, and can only be expected to act, in accordance with their own perceptions of their situation".

Of course. My hypothesis is that their perception is greatly influenced by the strong tribal elements of their culture that I alluded to in my post. That does not mean that legal immigration, purchasing land and developing it is actually "conquest and displacement" in any possible interpretation of the definition - except perhaps a post-modernist one whereby "victims" (meaning non-white, non-westerners) get to define reality according to their exclusive perceptions. The neighborhood where I went to high school in LA is about 99% black right now and when I was there it was about 80% white majority. Would you say that the white families there were conquered and displaced by blacks? Or, would you say that the perception of some whites who have tribal tendencies (racists) in that regard justify their cruising by and firing rifles into those neighborhoods hoping to kill a few of the residents? You did say that, "Like all people, these will act, and can only be expected to act, in accordance with their own perceptions of their situation." Why would your statement apply to Israel but not Inglewood, California.

I hesitate to bring up this next point, but after the disconnect from reality in your paragraph above maybe I should. Certainly you are not going to say that the acceptance of the Partition Plan by Israel, whereby Jews would be given sovereignty (not the right to steal the land of any Arab) over some Jewish majority areas in the territory - was an act of conquest and displacement. If so, I'd like to see your argument for that.

Nor is that comment a departure from my position, maintained for years in this forum. Charges that the Zionist enterprise and the establishment of Israel was some colossal crime are as specious as pretense it did not amount to conquest and displacement of people present on the lamd. There does not seem any point to pursuing this further, nor is there time for me to devote to it at present.

. . its status as a crime is not what I questioned. I do not see how "The Zionist Enterprise and the establishment of Israel" can in any honest way be classified as "conquest and displacement" in the common usage of the terms.

I'm surprised to see you take that position as I don't think I've seen you do it before. But it is a remarkable position to take, being so central to the issues in this conflict - actually being at the core. I don't think its a stretch for me to ask you to support the claim.

I''m not really concerned about what you think "my usual standard" is - but I always ask to see someone's reasoning if it's not clear to me. And I can't help but think that if someone makes a substantial claim but then says they don't have time to support it when challenged - then there probably is not much substance to the claim.

That's especially true in this case. You make a claim going to the heart of the whole I/P conflict. And it's a claim on the facts. It's hardly a matter of interpretation. Either the Jews conquered and displaced the Arabs who were living there and that's what accounts for the Jewish majorities in parts of Palestine at the time (1947) - or they didn't. When people are "conquered and displaced" it's usually a pretty dramatic affair. Lot's of blood, dead bodies, limbs, etc - and lots of photographs and newspaper articles and such. You should be able to easily support this claim if the facts are as you say.

BTW - "conquered" (your term) implies a complete military domination of the people in those particular areas that became Israel at least. Since you said "conquered and displaced" I assume the displacement was as the result of the conquering - otherwise known as ethnic cleansing.

Unless you have some trick up your sleeve I'd say your claim is preposterous on its face. But, I'm open for convincing and looking at any evidence you care to provide. Can you support this claim or not?

BTW - I invite anyone else who would like to discuss this rationally - not as an insult-fest - to step up and support this claim if you think it's true. Maybe you could find an article someplace about this historic "conquest and displacement" that occurred - and we can go from there.

Perhaps you can explain how people immigrating to a stateless territory and buying land to settle on is "a conquest and displacement of people present as inhabitants in the land".

The American Indians lived in stateless territory. So did the Australian Aborigines. In fact, the Australian Aborigines did not even cultivate any land or attempt to exercise private property rights over it, in the Western sense of the world.

Nevertheless, in each instance, those peoples were subject to conquest by foreign invaders.

If you have the chance to read Blackstone (as in Blackstone's commentaries) you'll find that there are, broadly speaking, three ways in which to acquire territory.

Concession. Settlement. Conquest.

The first is very rare. Even if a country sells land to a foreign entity it is very unlikely that the host country intended to relinquish sovereignty over it.

The second requires that a land be truly "terra nullius" - empty land. This was the case in the instance of, say, St Helena or Tristan de Cunho which were settled by the British and were true examples of vacant territory without any human population.

That leaves the third - conquest. This is the most common means of the acquisition of territory.

Certainly Israel deserves no censure above and beyond what was done in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. But it is silly to regard it as a category apart. It was founded on the theft of land from the previous inhabitants - the same as all of the others.

It's possible that I have been duped by a vast rewriting of history, but maybe you have access to some hidden documents that describe this "conquest and displacement" you refer to. You know, the landing on the beachheads by Jews in tanks and APC's destroying Arab villages - the armed Jewish militias throwing Arab families out of their homes and into the streets - the "invasion and conquest" that explains the presence of several hundred thousand Jews in the territory by 1947, living on land they purchased or rented from Arabs.

Then I suppose you have been duped. The book "All that remains" by Walid Khalidi, deals with this subject. You might also like to read this interview with Benny Morris.

http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

The point is they bought the land - they didn't kill the inhabitants and take it - as in a "conquest". Read the post next time before making a fool of yourself.

And don't start with the "Khalidi agrees with me" crap. Either develop your own points and show your own evidence - or expect to called out as the con artist you appear to be.

I'm not going to restate an entire corpus of work within the confines of this forum simply because you are too lazy to read it yourself. The book I have referred you to contains pictures, etc, of the villages that existed prior to the Naqba and which were razed and destroyed in its aftermath.`It has been at least 20 years since anyone took the "flowers and chocolate" version of 1948 seriously, in Israel or elsewhere. Even those to the right of the soup spoon in Israel concede Israel's conquest of Arab territory in 1948 - they simply attempt to characterise that conquest as defensive and necessary.

My whole discussion with Magistrate was specifically covering the period prior and up to the War of independence.

Here in the overview they start out by naming Israel as the greatest contributor to the deficits of human development throughout the whole region. I'd think that would gain them some credibility here. i.e. maybe we have a really fucked up society - but it's all Israel's fault.

You are the only one bringing up this portion of the study and stating there is credibility to gain towards unilaterally blaming Israel for the faults of Arabs. I would hope you would move on from this point as it is obviously incorrect and wearisome to continue on with.

Personally, I think Aramco, BP, Chevron, etal have probably had more to do with screwing up the region than Israel. The US-brokered 1953 Coup in Iran alone probably has caused more suffering than Israel. Also the failed colonial policies of both the Ottoman, French and British governments as well had a lot to do with things. Israel's West Bank policies are certainly a matter for review, but they hardly exist in a vacuum.

L-

"Is this a false heuristic, a racist symbolic or both?"

I realize that sarcasm does not communicate well in this format - but the purpose of my comment was to gently ridicule your characterization of the article as containing "false heuristics" and " racist symbolics". When ever I see people using much bigger words than necessary my BS meter starts pegging.

I was not arguing who was to blame for screwing up the region. I was using that content to question your criticism that seemed to be focused on ridiculing the science - a criticism I saw as unjustified. There was no question that in his article he was referencing that study.

I tend to dislike the Bell Curve too - but the scientific questions it raises are more important than the social animosity it has caused. There are still many mysteries to uncover in the realm of IQ. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" is one of my favorites and sits on my nearest bookshelf. But, I enjoy watching the science attempt to home in on some useful conclusions.

I'll go back and re-read some things to see if I agree with your latest post above - or not.

Keep it up.
I wondered if you supported this crap or not.

...

. . or do mods get a special pass? ;-)

Nobody can compel you to do anything. No filters, no censorship. Everybody gets to decide for themselves who to listen to and who to ignore. May the best ideas win. It's Darwin on steroids. The worst penalty is deletion of your post, which is nothing.

So no, you don't have to back up what you say unless you feel like it. And the mods labor under more stringent rules than us unwashed multitudes.

I wasn't implying that he literally *had* to back it up. No one really has to back up what they say. But that leaves others free to note the omission. I think it disrespects the forum when someone posts something that is just crap and can't back it up.

"And the mods labor under more stringent rules than us unwashed multitudes."

It appears those *more stringent rules* don't limit their ability to criticize the content of other posts. Not saying they should (limit their ability to comment). I think it's good knowing where our mods stand on some of these issues. I notice one of our mods doesn't post at all. That's unfortunate.

That is harder than you might think, and the reasons for it are obvious. That is one reason mods don't post a lot, I think, it could suck you in. A mod who pisses off all the people that only want to look at one side of an issue is doing a good job.

In the case of the OP, it's flaws are so obvious that I am more than happy to leave others to their own devices in evaluating it. You won't change the minds of anybody whose mind is not open to change, anyway.

Arabs like their way of life.

Stories to the contrary,
are for Western ears only.

big brother is watching