Comments from the blog “Breath of the Beat” about a much underreported story concerning how “a huge, open cesspool, part of an immense network of festering waste products has burst this past week and swept away an entire Palestinian village of 25 houses”:
"My Father served in the Merchant Marine during WWII. He told me that at every North African or Eastern Mediterranean port he sailed into, he could smell it from 25 miles out at sea. That smell was the palpable odor of a people trying to live in the modern world with a governmental organization that was not up to the task of providing the services required. The stink that must be emanating from Gaza now is just more of the same."
Back in the day, tribal and incessant warfare was the norm in Europe. Think of the Germanic tribes before they encountered and absorbed the civilizing influence of Christianity. Today, many societies have learned how to live in relative peace and freedom as a result of the revolutionary ideas of the Enlightenment project.
When and how will this come to the Middle East?
The answer I feel will remain allusive so long as the explanation as to why the region remains violent and backwards is based on the notions of neocolonial meddling and generations of repression.
To further get my point, read this telling article:
13 comments:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/06/lord-of-flies.html
How can we blame this on "Tha Jooz" ?
Not to derail this interesting thread, but you may find this linked item depressing and/or typical of what one finds on YouTube...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cpotato2004
He's a "journalist".
No. You don't say.
The crusaders were filthy animals compared to their Muslim counter parts. Civilized world of Christianity? You must be joking
"The crusaders were filthy animals compared to their Muslim counter parts."
"Civilized world of Christianity?"
And... "my favorite color is green?"
I’ve never understood why smug people attempt historical analogies that are supposed to demonstrate some kind of equivalency or counterpoint, but in actuality, are non sequitors that have little to nothing to do with current events. Is it a psychological need? Why?
I sometimes have to remind myself that in an age of internet drive-bys, "here is not here", and commenters will take the liberty to present mindless statements but feel utterly no compulsion to explain themselves.
And that's entertainment!
Isn't your claim that the Middle East is a backward society? You use the example of Germanic tribes being civilized by Christianity. I was giving you an example of how that was not the case. In fact, to make my point a little clearer so this no be construed as an internet drive by, Pope Urban the II called the first Crusade as a result of the lawlessness and barbarism of Europe. He hoped it would unify and civilize a disorderly place. When Muslims and Europeans began to interact with each other through warfare, it was the muslims who were more civilized on many fronts. Christianity did not civilize Europe (I will concede it played a secondary role) I never understood why people have to be long winded while a simple sentence or two will do the same.
[Dizyd]
Anon, you raise some fair points about Islam in the past having been civilized relative to Europe.
However, the Middle East didn't experience the Enlightenment and has fallen behind materially and in terms of governance, a fact of which most Middle Easterners are aware. Unfortunately, some are chosing nihilism in protest (whether in the form of suicide bombings or failing to deal with waste), to the great detriment of all.
"I never understood why people have to be long winded while a simple sentence or two will do the same."
Because a simple, smug statement does not an explanation make. A couple of short paragraphs to explain to readers clearly what you mean would be considerate, and should only take a few moments and never be construed as long winded.
“it was the muslims who were more civilized on many fronts.”
True, and so were the Chinese at that moment in history for that matter, but where’s the corollary point?
"Christianity did not civilize Europe (I will concede it played a secondary role)"
Wow. That's quite the historical revisionism there. And what would you claim as the primary civilizing influence? The Mongols? Or perhaps Saladin?
“Pope Urban the II called the first Crusade as a result of the lawlessness and barbarism of Europe.”
Yes, of course, the Crusades had nothing to do with resisting Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire.
Back to the topic at hand: As evidenced by current septic events and the continued death-cult terrorism, the Palestinians cannot govern themselves, and blaming Israel and the West for all their problems is wearing thin.
The more powerful monarchies that emerged after the crusades that allowed for better business, infrastructure, etc is what propelled Europe from barbarism to the renaissance period. When the monarchs got too strong, the response was the enlightenment. That is what i meant by my revisionist history.
[Dizyd]
Hey, how 'bout the power of the guilds and the middle class tempering the monarchies and the church in Europe? Competing interests were definitely part of the renaissance. Not to paint with too broad of a brush, but the middle class is conspiciously (though not entirely) absent from much of the Middle East at the moment -- there isn't much space for healthy competition. There are the very poor, the very rich, and the very interested in destroying it all.
Let’s clear something up, for starters.
With the destruction of the Western Roman empire by Germanic tribes in the 5th century, the classical civilization came to end. The Catholic Church, which had become the official religion of Rome in the 4th century, was the only surviving institution of the Roman world. Over hundreds of years, the Germanic and Celtic barbaric nations of Europe were slowly Christianized, in the process becoming settled nations under a rule of law. So, in the middle-ages, an age by the way that produced the chivalric codes, kings had to share power with fuedal lords, the clergy, and representative assemblies. People saw themselves as members of an estate –clergy, aristocracy, or peasants. The merging together of Christianity with the cultures of the Germanic barbarians, and the re-flowering of ancient thought, represented the beginning of a new civilization which we now call the West. Yes?
Anon: Christendom during this time may not have been an earthly paradise and without sin, and surely wouldn’t represent a societal order I’d like to live in, but it certainly wasn’t the state of barbarism you so nonchalantly refer to it as either.
"When the monarchs got too strong, the response was the enlightenment."
Yes, the consolidation of power by Kings during this era (among other important historical developments) had the effect of fostering the modern nation-state and an expansion of economies, but the Enlightenment was not a “response” to strong monarchies. It was a project born out of the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman forms during the Renaissance, an intellectual flowering of the lost thought of the ancients, not some utility devised to confront strong despots.
(Note: confronting despotism, something the M.E. suffers from and has failed to do to this day).
But again, can you explain your point to all this loose historiography? You said this wasn’t an internet drive-by, but then what of the other questions I put on the table?
I didn't think so.
Post a Comment