1. alistairConnor - 7/26/2002 12:20:30 PM
... Now I must go and prepare a barbecue lunch for the in-laws.
2. Snowowl - 7/26/2002 12:40:43 PM
If Jim has anything to do with it UF will certainly be the coalition partner of choice. Personally I think that bodes extremely badly for Labour. Quite apart from the fact that apart from Dunne I doubt anyone could name any of the members of his party that are likely to get into parliament, the composition of his proposed line-up worries me.
The only consolation I've had in this election is seeing the absolute slump of National - it's received lowest percentage of the vote that any major party has got since 1902. I have the sneaking feeling that Don Brasch is the next leader of the National Party.
3. jexster - 7/27/2002 5:08:09 AM
I've run across the phrase "va banque" as in "Saddam Hussein was playing a game of va banque" in GWI and again...Saddam Hussein might fall (this is why the game was va banque)...
Can't find a definition anywhere...
Am certain one of youse international brainiacs has on the tip of her silver tongue
4. jexster - 7/27/2002 5:11:19 AM
Best I can do is "heads I win tails you lose"
5. jexster - 7/27/2002 5:32:47 AM
On second look..."They might be able to reach independence but this is a va banque game, all or nothing. It is very risky and shared with a lot of blood shedding but the last will happen in both cases."
Seems to be a gambling term also the name of a chess move.
6. mrsOckO - 7/27/2002 8:06:34 AM
I agree that the United Party would probably be Clark's best choice. However, she has to deal first with the Greens, specifically their GE stand, before doing anything else; it's a matter of credibility for both parties.
One possible scenario as to how they will resolve the impasse is for Clark to agree to a referendum on genetic engineering, which would allow both parties to appear true to their positions. (This is what the conservatives did with superannuation in 1996 in order to get Winston Peters into their fold. You'll recall that Peters' proposal was soundly defeated in the subsequent referendum.) But it would only postpone the inevitable as far as the Greens are concerned, since Clark's position would almost certainly be vouchsafed in any poll. Will the Greens agree to it?
7. mrsOckO - 7/27/2002 8:12:13 AM
The prospect of a grand center-right coalition seems pretty remote. New Zealand has no experience of European/Israeli-type parliamentary arrangements, and to try to introduce it right now would be a hard sell. But the biggest argument against it happening is the parlous state of the National Party. The conservatives are in no fit shape to be governing anybody.
8. jexster - 7/27/2002 3:29:15 PM
Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad, [a position long-espoused by noted Mote geo-political analyst, Cmndr Baba Jex]
Search for Intelligent Life in Texas Bush: Pentagon Continues to Dump on Machismo Iraq Schemes
But he GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE (Daniel Sickles)
9. jexster - 7/27/2002 3:31:26 PM
AC...
To what extent do national Green Parties cooperate with each other? How are their platforms same, different? What about fund raising, party ops?
10. Marc-Albert - 7/27/2002 4:51:39 PM
New Zealand politics is definitely an acquired taste... But I did surf through the Dominion Post yesterday: crime, juvenile delinquency, kidnap-for-ransom. Is there indeed a crime wave in NZ, or is it just the DP?
11. jexster - 7/27/2002 8:48:41 PM
Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink of collapse, fuelling Foreign Office fears of an extremist takeover of one of the West's key allies in the war on terror.
Anti-government demonstrations have swept the desert kingdom in the past months in protest at the pro-American stance of the de facto ruler, Prince Abdullah.
At the same time, Whitehall officials are concerned that Abdullah could face a palace coup from elements within the royal family sympathetic to al-Qaeda.
Saudi sources said the Pentagon had recently sponsored a secret conference to look at options if the royal family fell.
Saudi Arabia could fall to al-Qaeda
12. PincherMartin - 7/28/2002 2:23:11 AM
Saudi Arabia falling to Al Qaeda is too much to hope for.
13. wonkers2 - 7/28/2002 3:16:15 AM
Yeah, that would be great! We wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis flooding the market with cheap oil.
14. mrsOckO - 7/28/2002 9:13:03 AM
Message # 25209
New Zealand and Australia are pretty violent by world standards. Although there isn't as much gun violence as there is in, say, the U.S. or Russia, there's plenty of the old-fashioned variety.
I suppose, sad though it is to admit, that the most violent societies usually appear to be the most ethnically mixed. Is there any other reason why Switzerland and South Korea are considerably less violence-prone than Australia and America?
15. RickNelson - 7/28/2002 12:34:49 PM
Dunne and that United-Future party seems interesting. Leans on family values and has members with rather strong christian backgrounds. I read Mrs. Turner's excerpt explainging they're not a party of extremist right-wingers. She went on to express that family in any form is the most important focus. Good, that. What about contentions?
It appears those MPs think they'll have no troubld with Labour. True?
National lost pretty big. Is that good?
16. Rama - 7/28/2002 5:42:09 PM
Is there any other reason why Switzerland and South Korea are considerably less violence-prone than Australia and America?
Yes there are. While ethnic diversity is a major cause of violence, it is not the only cause. Culturally conditioned socialization effects the threshold at which individuals will respond by physical violence to frustration and fear. In both Switzerland and South Korea, loosing control is embarrassing, and so activities that would result in violence in Australia or the U.S. result in a call to the authorities. Additional socialization factors include the degree of individual autonomy individuals are encouraged to experess and plain old modelling: If you see violence succeed, you are likely to copy the behavior.
17. jexster - 7/28/2002 6:06:28 PM
Marc-Albert....the article referenced in the New York Times link that got you all worked up about Goat Island....
Puissance américaine, faiblesse européenne, par Robert kagan
La différence fondamentale entre les Etats-Unis et l'Europe tient moins à une question de culture et de philosophie que de capacité à agir.
18. jexster - 7/28/2002 6:09:10 PM
Traduit pour les Americains...
POWER AND WEAKNESS
Why the United States and Europe see the world differently
Robert Kagan
19. jexster - 7/28/2002 7:26:09 PM
Looks like Rummy is leaking again....
New York Times...another leak
20. jexster - 7/28/2002 7:41:54 PM
THE MORALITY AND LEGALITY OF A WAR AGAINST IRAQ
A CHRISTIAN DECLARATION - Pax Christi
21. Marc-Albert - 7/28/2002 10:01:00 PM
Goat Island?? Well, I guess you may call it like that since the one dozen semi-permanent denizens of Perejil have probably eaten up all the parsley by now.
Thanks for the Kagan link. Remarkably lucid. I subscribe to everything he says.
22. Rama - 7/28/2002 11:11:37 PM
I agree, it is an excellent article
23. alistairConnor - 7/29/2002 12:08:06 PM
Message # 25209 Marc-Albert The Dom-Post (known as the ComPost) is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Need I say more?
24. alistairConnor - 7/29/2002 12:20:48 PM
Message # 25214 Depends what you're into, Rick. In most parts of the world, political parties who claim to base their actions on "christian values" are actually talking about an authoritarian, patriarchal model.
To put it another way, I've nothing against Christ, on the contrary, but he himself was sensible enough to stay out of secular matters.
I don't think that it's clear yet, where these geezers are going. I think that's why Clark is not wanting to rely on them in the short term. Electorally, their support comes from ex-National voters, and logically they will emerge clearly as a right-wing party -- Dunne himself may not like this, he himself is bland as mashed potatoes, but their true nature is sure to come through.
25. alistairConnor - 7/29/2002 12:36:40 PM
Message # 25208 Jex : There is indeed a "Green International", the first Global Greens conference was held last year in Australia, and a Green Charter has been adopted.
26. betty - 7/29/2002 1:08:52 PM
aC,
that link doesn't work for me (though i've seen the charter before so it doesn't really matter to me).
27. jexster - 7/29/2002 3:57:31 PM
The CluelessOne
"WASHINGTON, July 29 — An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the United States would have to pay most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions, government officials, diplomats and economists say.
Eleven years ago, the Persian Gulf war, fought to roll back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, cost the United States and its allies $60 billion and helped set off an economic recession caused in part by a spike in oil prices.
For that war, the allies picked up almost 80 percent of the bill."
SEARCH FOR INTELLIGENT LIFE IN TEXAS BUSH- Profound Effect on U.S. Economy Seen in a War on Iraq
The National Joke is set to become an International Disaster.
28. jexster - 7/29/2002 4:02:38 PM
"Just open a map," said a member of the Kuwaiti royal family in close consultation with Washington. "Afghanistan is in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you want to open a third front in the region?"
"That would truly turn into a war of civilizations," he added.
29. jexster - 7/29/2002 4:04:47 PM
My view is that given all we have said as a leading world power about the necessity of regime change in Iraq," Mr. [James] Schlesinger said, "means that our credibility would be badly damaged if that regime change did not take place."
30. jexster - 7/29/2002 4:06:06 PM
"Given the marked lack of enthusiasm for this venture, I wouldn't think the market reaction would be very good,"
James A. Placke, a former senior diplomat specializing in the Persian Gulf and now a senior associate of Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
31. PincherMartin - 7/29/2002 5:00:30 PM
Wonkers --
Yeah, that would be great! We wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis flooding the market with cheap oil.
You haven't been paying attention to what's going on in Central Asia. If Al Qaeda took over in Saudi Arabia, they wouldn't be in charge of those wells long enough to destroy them, let alone profit from them.
But, as I said, it's too much to hope for. The Sauds are always on the verge of falling out of power, according to some analysts. And in this case, it appears to be a family squabble anyway. The funny thing is Abdullah was once considered anti-West, when he took over from Fahd, and now he's being portrayed as pro-American.
32. jexster - 7/29/2002 5:48:49 PM
ONDON, July 29 — King Abdullah II of Jordan, stopping here on his way to a meeting with President Bush in Washington, said today that elements of the American government were "fixated" on attacking Iraq and that only Secretary of State Colin L. Powell understood the true dimensions of the challenge.
Inmates in Charge of Asylum - Jordanian Says U.S. Attack on Iraq Would Roil Mideast
33. magoseph - 7/29/2002 7:01:31 PM
Method Without Madness?
Under group pressure, they see logic and a "higher purpose" in their actions.
The list includes architects and drifters, engineers and poets, teenagers and middle-aged men, a 30-year-old woman, an 18-year-old girl, and, every week it seems, someone else, someone different.
Suicide bombers are not deranged, psychiatrists say
34. Raskolnikov - 7/29/2002 8:42:27 PM
I seem to recall a few months ago that Pincher posted some information showing that the US share of global GDP had not actually declined since WWII. I seem to remember it being discussed in the context of declining US global power. However, I can't seem to find the post, and can't confirm the info on the web. Does anyone recall where this was, or if Pincher is here, can he recall where he found it?
35. stostosto - 7/29/2002 10:11:11 PM
Rask: Angus Maddison is a good (the best?) source for these long term GDP comparisons.
36. PincherMartin - 7/29/2002 10:26:19 PM
Angus Maddison's latest book was my source for that debate.
However, I don't recall arguing that the United States did not see its share of the World GDP decline since WWII. I believe my argument was that the United States share of world GDP did not decline markedly from 1950 onwards. (1950 is a key benchmark year Maddison uses for most of his graphs. I'll find the particular one when I have the chance today.)
In fact, I took PE to task -- for obvious reasons -- when he used 1945 as his benchmark for measuring U.S. economic power relative to the rest of the world.
37. PincherMartin - 7/29/2002 10:31:22 PM
According to Maddison, the U.S. share of world GDP actually trends slightly upward since 1973, due to the breakup of the Soviet Union.
38. ronski - 7/30/2002 1:59:03 AM
What If They Gave a War in the Straits, and Nobody Came?
Comments from Pincher and all others appreciated.
39. PincherMartin - 7/30/2002 8:54:04 AM
Ronski --
Thanks for the link.
My first reaction was why would anyone be surprised that Taiwan -- and not the war on terrorism -- is China's top priority.
China has Muslim terrorists, but they are largely under control. The Chinese suffer much less from them than do Russians from Chechens, Indians from Kashmiri separatists, or Americans have recently from Al Qaeda.
It's conceivable to me that Chinese might even think a U.S.-led discussion on Xinjiang was a ploy to distract attention from Taiwan (and possibly even to encourage more separatist talk in another troubled region).
40. PincherMartin - 7/30/2002 8:54:16 AM
China's foreign policy is built largely around two goals: trade and Taiwan. Their perspective for viewing the latter of these goals is strictly in realpolitik terms. I mean hard-core power politics. So this paragraph in the article rings true:
The first question following my paper asked if the powerful United States does not feel safe, then how could any other country feel safe? There was a disconnect when discussing a sense of vulnerability in the United States, and a constant redirecting of the debate toward power politics, the so-called "trilateral relationships" (U.S./China/Russia; U.S./China/Japan, etc.), and American policy toward Taiwan. The name Kissinger was heard more than bin Laden.But again, what does this silly scholar expect? Bin Laden is as remote to Chinese concerns as the price of rice in Szechuan is to U.S. concerns.
The conversation was wholly scripted by the afternoon of the second day, and the agenda seemed to be to give us a message about how close the Chinese are to taking action across the strait.An academic goes to China to attend a high-profile conference ands is shocked the Chinese use it for non-academic purposes? But to Chinese minds, this is an opportunity to make clear to high-profile U.S. decision-makers their feelings on Taiwan.
41. ScottLoar - 7/30/2002 9:49:20 AM
There is yet another, pronounced motive as well: the compelling urge by Chinese to educate non-Chinese, for dissent from accepted thought must surely be the result of ignorance, and ignorance can and must be corrected.
42. ScottLoar - 7/30/2002 9:51:44 AM
In the best tradition of dogmatics everywhere, it is not enough that one admits ignorance but that one must be brought to enlightenment and back on the path of orthodoxy.
43. RickNelson - 7/30/2002 10:19:20 AM
Scott, most excellent insight I suppose. China is still an enigma in the west to my way of thinking. I think along the lines that the west doesn't understand the motives of China's leadership. But, then again I don't either. But, that's part of my point. We are not given information about China. To be part of what's happening we need news.
Our own governer went to China very recently. You may have heard? It was slightly embarrassing. His intention to solicit trade between Minnesota and China may bring results, but the news clips didn't show much.
44. PincherMartin - 7/30/2002 11:06:17 AM
Scott Loar --
I agree. The academic in the article mentions a revealing incident along the lines you bring up:
The senior general in their delegation lectured my colleague Nancy Bernkopf Tucker over breakfast about how "ignorant" she was of Chinese history (she's studied China for 30 years), and subsequently cut her off during her presentation on Taiwan.
45. PincherMartin - 7/30/2002 11:28:04 AM
Rask --
My memory of the stats was faulty, as far as I'm able to tell now. It's very difficult to know where to look in Maddison; his book is full of tables, and for the information we want, there is no one table you can look at (or at least none that I found). Nevertheless, this is what I have:
U.S. GDP Figures as a Percentage of World GDP
1913: 19.1%
1950: 27.3%
1962: 24.3%
1973: 22.0%
1986: 21.5%
1998: 21.9%
It's a shame we don't have the figures for a year in the mid-30s.
Look at some of the comparable figures for all of Western Europe:
1913: 33.5%
1950: 26.3%
1973: 25.7%
1998: 20.6%
46. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:00:00 PM
RP...
NBC Nightly News is running a report 2nite on Testosterone Gel...check their website later on..I am sure they'll have info...
FYI I asked my doc about it in connection with a clinical trial sometime back..he said it was too messy to use, stick with the IM in the butt shot
47. jexster - 7/30/2002 6:00:48 PM
oops wrong thread...I meant the Israeli-PAL-RP's Love Life Thread
48. jexster - 7/31/2002 1:43:50 AM
Several months back, when certain neo-con Motiers were all ga-ga over the WarLord, gung ho for Saddam, I had occasion to point out to them the utter folly of their folderol...among the predictions I offered - Bush baghdad blather would only serve to raise the power and status of Saddam who plays his game va banque
Hussein's opening diplomatic gambits have been deft: settling outstanding territorial disputes with Kuwait; winning Arab League support for the proposition that an attack on Iraq constitutes an attack on all Arab states; dangling lucrative contracts before Russia and France; spooking Saudi Arabia so thoroughly that U.S. planners are now developing a war plan without use of Saudi bases. Graham T. Allison
Bow down....
49. stostosto - 8/1/2002 11:34:28 PM
Turkey's parliament voted today overwhelmingly in favour of abandoning the death penalty. Not so incidentally, this was one of the stumbling blocks for the country's entry into the EU.
Damn, they say in Germany. A little more of this, and we'll have to invent some new high-minded objections to letting Turkey in.
50. stostosto - 8/1/2002 11:44:17 PM
Turkey to scrap death penalty (BBC)
The Turkish parliament has voted to abolish the death penalty.
Turkish deputies have been debating a package of reforms aimed at easing the way for the European Union to set a date for the opening of accession negotiations.
Abolishing capital punishment would be an important step towards Turkey's ambition of joining the EU, correspondents say.
It would also save condemned Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan from execution.
Öcalan.
51. stostosto - 8/1/2002 11:45:19 PM
Detoy.
52. Marc-Albert - 8/2/2002 12:17:39 AM
Letting Turkey in..
By then, that should be in excess of 100 million Turks to integrate in the EU. There will be, among other things, the little matter of the CAP: tens of millions of Turkish farmers will expect the same benefits that accrued to the French, Spanish and Portugueses farmers in the past, that has become their acquired right, and that they will (very violently) defend to their last breath.
I would imagine quite a few billions of euros during the first ten years following Turkey's admission.
And before, there will be the little matter of integrating millions of Polish farmers, and make them happy too. It's their godgiven right too.
But what the heck. As the French like to say: "l'Allemagne paiera".
53. PincherMartin - 8/2/2002 1:02:17 PM
Good essay by Victor Davis Hanson on why Americans shouldn't worry too much about whether foreigners like us or not.
...we should explain to the world why U.N. resolutions do not represent collective wisdom, but often the reinforced biases and private agendas of dozens of autocratic, theocratic, and tribal regimes who vote only in New York, never at home. And if we are more imaginative still we can point out that the American fleet keeps the peace cheaply for others in the Pacific and Mediterranean, that American companies and universities provide the world with life-saving medicine, medical treatments, and critical technology.
54. stostosto - 8/2/2002 1:32:06 PM
"that American companies and universities provide the world with life-saving medicine, medical treatments, and critical technology."
Free of charge? That's truly magnanimous.
Come on, Pincher. You can't seriously think this Hanson bugger is worthwhile.
55. glendajean - 8/2/2002 1:37:41 PM
I am in England for a few days. I saw a paperback book in a London bookstore called Why We Hate Americans.
56. glendajean - 8/2/2002 1:38:03 PM
toys?
57. PincherMartin - 8/2/2002 2:23:43 PM
Sto --
Neither Hanson nor I ever said that the medicine, schooling, and technology is "free of charge." Nevertheless, many of the world's developing countries can get it in the U.S. for a fair price, and tens of thousands of their citizens choose to do so every year.
And, yes, Hanson's essay is worthwhile, enjoyable even. But I can't promise it'll be a life-changing event for you.
58. PincherMartin - 8/2/2002 2:25:02 PM
I am in England for a few days. I saw a paperback book in a London bookstore called Why We Hate Americans.
You should pick it up.
59. RickNelson - 8/2/2002 2:44:43 PM
PM,
Wrt to that tiny excerpt by Hanson; could he be expounding the closed logic that American's do so much good, other opinions aren't worthy of study toward cause and affect?
60. RickNelson - 8/2/2002 2:45:43 PM
Gotta go or I'ld read your link.
61. PincherMartin - 8/2/2002 2:52:37 PM
Rick --
I think he's simply saying that Americans provide the world with many good things. It's not an original thought and Americans are not the only ones to do so, but when many people around the world look at the U.S. as being on the level of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, it's worth pointing out.
62. wonkers2 - 8/2/2002 3:46:50 PM
Turkey abolishing the death penalty? Soon the U.S. will be in a very small, elite group.
63. stostosto - 8/3/2002 12:45:13 AM
"when many people around the world look at the U.S. as being on the level of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, it's worth pointing out."
Pincher, I really don't think you should be so insecure. Who are those "many" people? I have said this before, and I will say it again: I don't think there has ever been a more acceptable and accepted hegemon in world history as the US is right now, on almost any level. That doesn't mean people won't disagree with any given US policy. Indeed, the hegemon status virtually guarantees that there will always be someone somewhere who disagrees whatever America chooses to do. But that is not the same as being considered on a par with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
I don't know if I want to read Hanson. I already read some of his some time ago along that quote you gave, and it had a distinctive seventh grader feel. He seems to have a quaint fixation with the US as provider of "life-saving" medicine which he apparently thinks merits some special status and regard above what it actually is getting. The man is a card.
64. stostosto - 8/3/2002 12:47:22 AM
Turkey's parliament actually voted the whole reform package through meaning also that Kurdish language will now be allowed in Turkish mass media. Encouraging, I think.
I have a feeling that this might be more significant than I am capable of accounting for.
65. PincherMartin - 8/3/2002 3:15:47 AM
Sto --
Pincher, I really don't think you should be so insecure. Who are those "many" people?
Followers of Chomsky, Vidal, etc. Countless numbers in the Arab and Muslim world, who believe the U.S. bombed itself on 9-11 so that it could continue its hegemon role in the Middle East. (Hanson's article is directed more at the Arab and Muslim world.)
Perhaps if you weren't so self-censoring on what you read, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.
I have said this before, and I will say it again: I don't think there has ever been a more acceptable and accepted hegemon in world history as the US is right now, on almost any level.
That article I linked wasn't directed at you personally. If you don't want to read it, don't read it.
That doesn't mean people won't disagree with any given US policy. Indeed, the hegemon status virtually guarantees that there will always be someone somewhere who disagrees whatever America chooses to do. But that is not the same as being considered on a par with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
Numerous people all over the world, including in the United States, accuse the U.S. of all sorts of crimes that are on par with those countries. Some of them go so far as to make the comparison outright. You may not believe they count, and pre 9-11 I might have agreed. But the U.S. now believes it's important enough to spend money in this area to counter their perceptions.
continued ...
66. PincherMartin - 8/3/2002 3:16:25 AM
I don't know if I want to read Hanson. I already read some of his some time ago along that quote you gave, and it had a distinctive seventh grader feel.
Victor Davis Hanson has a PhD in Classics from Stanford University and has written extensively on Ancient Greek warfare and agriculture. His work in those areas is considered groundbreaking. More recently he has published bestselling books that deal with the Western idea of Warfare.
In much the same way that Paul Krugman went from solid scholarly work to more popular stuff, and finally to column writing, Hanson has followed the same route. I'm not sure this is the right direction to take for any scholar, but Hanson retains enough power in his writing to get above the seventh-grade level.
As for whether you read it or not, I really don't care.
He seems to have a quaint fixation with the US as provider of "life-saving" medicine which he apparently thinks merits some special status and regard above what it actually is getting. The man is a card.
The fixation is yours, not his. Besides the one line I cited, I don't believe Hanson even mentions medicine anywhere else in the column. If he did, I don't remember it, and he certainly doesn't focus on the subject.
67. alistairConnor - 8/3/2002 6:37:18 PM
Sto : Did the Turkish parliament also vote to put an end to their quaint custom of being overthrown by the military every few years?
And if it becomes legal to speak and think in Kurdish, they will have to find another excuse to outlaw Kurdish political parties.
Sure, on paper it looks like progress. I hope it really is.
68. stostosto - 8/4/2002 6:45:07 PM
Like Why the West has Won reviewed here in the Independent.
---
I have dutifully read the good essay you linked now. Hanson argues that people hate America because of all its unique virtues, but can't say so because that sort of sounds silly, so they invent all kinds of improbable gripes like invasions and bombing campaigns and sanctions and support for Israel's various military ventures and let out their pent-up steam over these. That's an original view.
69. stostosto - 8/4/2002 6:47:54 PM
Oops, I forgot to insert this remark of Pincher's in the beginning of my former post:
More recently he has published bestselling books that deal with the Western idea of Warfare.
70. stostosto - 8/4/2002 6:49:43 PM
Alistair:
When was the last time the Turkish army intervened? And is your skeptical-sounding comment rooted in opposition to admitting Turkey into the EU?
71. stostosto - 8/4/2002 6:53:20 PM
In much the same way that Paul Krugman went from solid scholarly work to more popular stuff, and finally to column writing, Hanson has followed the same route.
I am a bit dismayed at Krugman's development as an NYT obsessionist. But I think it's improper that you compare him to the Hanson fellow, however groundbreaking his work may have been in the field of ancient Greek agriculture and warfare.
72. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2002 7:03:26 PM
That's a good one, sto. I thought I recognized the name of the reviewer, Frank McLynn, and yes, he is a professor of history at the University of London.
73. alistairConnor - 8/4/2002 8:33:40 PM
When was the last time the Turkish army intervened?
Has it been more than five years? Less than ten, surely.
No, I am by no means opposed to Turkey entering Europe : just sceptical about how profoundly the ruling class are prepared to change their ways. As I understand it, the army is pervasive in political and economic life, and still very much a player. That's not acceptable, I think, for an EU country.
And whatever statutes they vote for the Kurds, I imagine that ethnic Turkish nationalism will still have the upper hand for a number of years, and that again is a no-no for the EU.
74. alistairConnor - 8/4/2002 8:36:18 PM
Clearly, the prospect of EU entry is a positive influence, and they are moving in the right directions, but I fear it will be slow.
75. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2002 9:18:45 PM
I don't think the Turkish army has intervened in politics in any major way since the bloodless coup of 1980.
76. PelleNilsson - 8/4/2002 9:21:45 PM
I imagine that ethnic Turkish nationalism will still have the upper hand for a number of years, and that again is a no-no for the EU.
Come on Alistair. What about ethnic German nationalism? Danish? French? Ethnic nationalism is the norm in EU.
77. betty - 8/4/2002 9:34:16 PM
Pelle,
I can understand alistair's concern...German nationalism hasn't resulted in the government-sanctioned massacre of minority populations in almost 60 years. Yet we know that this is an ongoing and current problem in Turkey today.
that said, it's nice to know that the Turkey has beaten the US in outlawing the death penalty. Geesh, we should be proud of ourselves over here for standing defiantly against international pressure to act like a semi-civilized society. We are bold!
78. wonkers2 - 8/4/2002 9:57:44 PM
There's no reason to be dismayed at Krugman's NYT op-ed pieces. They may not present both sides of the argument, but the side they present is accurate and well formulated. The NYT has by far the best op-ed page I've seen. I'm sure Krugman is fulfilling his scholarly and teaching obligations at Princeton. He is a well respected, solid, middle-of-the-road economist and not the first to grace the NYT's op-ed page.
79. alistairConnor - 8/4/2002 10:52:34 PM
Pelle, In 1997 or 1998, the military intervened to prevent the formation of a democratically-elected government which was too Islamic for the Kemalist army. Whether one approves of that or not, it is hardly par for the course in the EU. The military also owns large chunks of the economy, and runs it for its own benefit -- again, hardly European orthodoxy.
And if you think the Turkish "handling" of the Kurd minority is comparable to, say, the Basque or Corsican issues, well... think again.
80. PincherMartin - 8/5/2002 3:19:45 AM
Sto --
Pincher: "More recently he has published bestselling books that deal with the Western idea of Warfare."
Sto: Like Why the West has Won reviewed here in the Independent.
Yes, just like that book. The title of it in the United States is Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power. It is not a scholarly tome; it is one of those books, as I said, that is a best-seller. Another one to add to this list is The Soul of Battle.
Hanson's books for the masses have numerous faults in them, but they are far more enjoyable and knowledgable than that amazingly shitty review to which you linked. (Normally, I would suggest you read one of Hanson's books to sample his work, but I now know what tough work reading is for you.) I would think you would be on your guard when you read "...it is actually a crude piece of pro-capitalist propaganda. 'Capitalism,' the author tells us, 'explains in no small part Western military dominance from the age of Salamis to the Gulf War.'"
Hanson is right. The marketplace in the West has provided a critical edge in the West's battles with armies from non-Western cultures. The Greeks had far better military technology than the Persians even though the Persians by all measurements had far more wealth when looked at in gross terms. Part of the reason for this was the effiency of the agora where Greeks could work successful trades without too much fear from the elites.
And who would even argue that, more recently, capitalism is a major reason -- perhaps the only reason -- why the West has reigned supreme on the battlefield.
(If called upon, I will go through that review section by section and demolish most of his claims.)
continued ...
81. PincherMartin - 8/5/2002 3:21:42 AM
---
I have dutifully read the good essay you linked now.
Why? I absolved you of any duty.
As for your comments, it is as I feared: they are largely self-serving and non-responsive to my comments on your post. Asked to prove what "many" think of the U.S. as a modern-day Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, I gave specific answers. Now you move on to say that, well, since the U.S. has policies many disagree with, Hanson is wrong.
Your arguments are entirely ad hoc and silly. First, you claim you don't think you ought to read the article and that this Hanson fellow (who you haven't read) can't write past a seventh-grade level anyway. I reply, fine don't read the article, but Hanson is a respected scholar of Ancient Greek Warfare.
Then you read the article and link to a highly critical review about one of Hanson's popular works (not scholarly books) as if to show you were right not to read the article in the first place.
Sto, let's clear one thing up. I don't care if you read the link, Hanson's books, or just about anything else under the damn sun. Get it? I don't care. But I will respond to any spurious remarks you make about the U.S., myself, Hanson, or any other subject when I feel you need to be publicly corrected.
82. PincherMartin - 8/5/2002 3:31:59 AM
Sto --
I am a bit dismayed at Krugman's development as an NYT obsessionist. But I think it's improper that you compare him to the Hanson fellow, however groundbreaking his work may have been in the field of ancient Greek agriculture and warfare.
Why? Based on the one article of Hanson's and the one review of his popular work you've read?
Hanson is not the scholar Krugman is, but their development from respectable scholar to writer of popular works to columnist is similar. Hanson's The Western Way of War is a remarkable piece of scholarship on Greek hoplite battles. It's possible even you would enjoy it could you move yourself to pick up a book.
Where Hanson gets into trouble in his popular books is by overstating his claims and ignoring contradictory evidence. But even in his popular work, he is interesting and readable.
83. RickNelson - 8/5/2002 3:43:30 AM
wonkers,
No disrespect to you, but this afternoons kausfiles report was specifically about Krugman.
"Krugman: "I Didn't Know"
The NYT columnist grudgingly admits error -- to readers of his Web site, anyway.
By Mickey Kaus
Posted Monday, August 5, 2002, at 2:21 PM PT
Will Paul Krugman's next NYT column acknowledge the serious fact mistake in his July 16 column on George W. Bush's Texas Rangers investment? The mistake was pointed out in a letter to the NYT, dated 7/22 but printed last Friday. Krugman admitted the mistake yesterday, in weaselly best-defense-is-a-good-offense fashion, on his own Web site. But how many Times readers read Krugman's Web site? Don't NYT columnists print corrections of their errors in the same space where the errors were made?"
84. marjoribanks - 8/5/2002 3:08:08 PM
Hey, sto, I thought you may be interested to read this article on Kerala and World Cup fever.
85. jexster - 8/5/2002 5:16:16 PM
Warlord Threat to Karzai - Fight Could Cause US Backed Regime to Fall
86. jexster - 8/5/2002 11:34:25 PM
They (the hearings) produced a number of experts who set out in detail what the costs would be -- the political costs, the economic costs," said international affairs analyst Marshall Windmiller. "They're staggering."
When considering toppling Saddam Hussein, it would be wise to consider the lesson provided by the consequent struggle Afghanistan ( news - web sites) is having after the U.S. invaded there, Windmiller said.
"(President) Karzai is having a big struggle with his defense minister. Two members of his cabinet were assassinated, the warlords are running the countryside, the rule of law extends only to the boundaries of Kabul, and the farmers are planting opium poppies again," he said. "The place is a shambles." - Associated Press
87. stostosto - 8/5/2002 11:35:30 PM
Sto, let's clear one thing up. I don't care if you read the link, Hanson's books, or just about anything else under the damn sun. Get it?
Well, if you say so. But when someone links to what they call a good essay and quote a passage from that essay, wouldn't it normally be considered a recommendation for others to read it, perhaps even comment on it? And when someone says, as you did in Message # 25264 that "Perhaps if you weren't so self-censoring on what you read, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions", then it might be interpreted as a reproach for my not having read the article.
And, Pincher, let's clear one other thing up: I don't care whether you care that I read it.
Message # 25290:As for your comments, it is as I feared: they are largely self-serving and non-responsive to my comments on your post. Asked to prove what "many" think of the U.S. as a modern-day Nazi Germany or Soviet Union, I gave specific answers. Now you move on to say that, well, since the U.S. has policies many disagree with, Hanson is wrong.
I didn't address your answer (which of course depends on the meaning of the word "many"), true, but how was my comment self-serving? Because by stating the essence of Hanson's screed, I substantiated my previously stated disdain for him?
88. stostosto - 8/5/2002 11:47:29 PM
Why? [don't I think Hanson should be compared to Krugman]. Based on the one article of Hanson's and the one review of his popular work you've read?
Yes, based on that. There is quite enough empty posturing in that article to make the criticism of the review appear likely to hold true.
Where Hanson gets into trouble in his popular books is by overstating his claims and ignoring contradictory evidence.
You say that as if that is almost an irrelevant detail. From what I have seen he is also prone to sweeping generalisations, and he has this odd idea that the fact that America produces technologies that are in demand by others, including America's enemies somehow in itself shows how hypocritical they are. I would point out that as long as the foreigners pay the going market price for these products (and in two articles by Hanson, he conspicuously and specifically mentions medicine), it is hard to see anything moral in this, one way or the other. If so, one could justifiably argue that the fact that the rest of the world finances America's widening current account deficit makes American bossiness hypocritical.
But even in his popular work, he is interesting and readable.
I have your word for it, but I am not going to see if it holds true.
89. stostosto - 8/5/2002 11:53:59 PM
Instead of discussing on the basis of "good essays" by puffed-up dotty windbags like Hanson, her is my entry for the category "a good essay": Power and Weakness. By Robert Kagan.
It is highly illuminating as to why America and Europe see the world so differently. Perceptive, intelligent and eye-opening. And, I might add, not at all Euro-friendly, but actually a quite scathing comment on Euro-illusions.
90. jexster - 8/6/2002 2:25:59 AM
I dun bin tellin youse Euro-wusses....KICK BUTT
Annan Warns Against Irak Attak
91. jexster - 8/6/2002 3:37:08 AM
Sto...
Kagan's article oversimplifies what he calls "the American" perspective.
Back during the Cold War, some Europeans were concerned that, trip-wire notwithstanding, America screw Europe by fighting a war with Russia solely on European soil, leaving Europe in cinders and the US in tact.
And I for one, think that this concern was not entirely without foundation. For, and this is where Kagan oversimplifies, there has been a strain in US politics on foreign affairs, an anti-Euro, very nativist strain dating back to God's Annointing in 1776, and even b4 that really, which reached its extreme in the defeat of the League of Nations and pre-WWII isolationism. The political ground was in the Republican Party.
Though masked somewhat by the Cold War, it was present nonetheless visible in a Euro-centric bent (Democrats) and Asian Tilt (Republican, Mme. Chaing, Committee of 100 McCarthy etc).
Now that the Cold War is over and the mask is off we can clearly see today in Bush's dealings with the EU, that this nativist anti-Euroism is still alive and well in the GOP.
If Europeans think for minute that Republicans generally, and the current president especially in particular, give a crap about what Europe's interests are - forget it.
92. jexster - 8/6/2002 3:38:56 AM
Should push come to shove, Bush will toss Europe as quickly as an empty can of Lone Star beer.
Kagan hinted at it. Kagan is a Bush-o-phile so Kagan wouldn't say it...just glossed it.
93. jexster - 8/6/2002 3:42:10 AM
"america [WOULD] screw"
94. jexster - 8/6/2002 4:09:14 AM
BEIJING (AP) - Taiwan faces a growing possibility of military action by the mainland if "radical pro-independence moves" continue on the island, the Chinese government warned Wednesday through its state-run media.
But hawk interpretations are wrong and will only contribute to the United States’ decline, transforming a gradual descent into a much more rapid and turbulent fall. Specifically, hawk approaches will fail for military, economic, and ideological reasons.
And there is always the matter of “second fronts.” Following the Gulf War, U.S. armed forces sought to prepare for the possibility of two simultaneous regional wars. After a while, the Pentagon quietly abandoned the idea as impractical and costly.
But who can be sure that no potential U.S. enemies would strike when the United States appears bogged down in Iraq?
New Haven -- George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one which will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States -- and the rest of the world. Wall-eyed Stein
95. PincherMartin - 8/6/2002 5:09:28 PM
Message # 25286
Well, if you say so. But when someone links to what they call a good essay and quote a passage from that essay, wouldn't it normally be considered a recommendation for others to read it, perhaps even comment on it?
Certainly. But I'm not the slightest bit interested in someone who gives an opinion on a piece when they haven't even read it, disparages the author when they don't know him, and after this is pointed out, tries to cover it up by making an immediate and self-serving search to discredit him and his work.
And when someone says, as you did in Message # 25264 that "Perhaps if you weren't so self-censoring on what you read, you wouldn't ask such stupid questions", then it might be interpreted as a reproach for my not having read the article.
No reproach. I'm making fun of you for having such firm opinions on something you haven't even read. The funniest part is that you didn't even try to read it. It's not like you got a quarter of the way through and decided it wasn't worth finishing. That would at least be understandable.
And, Pincher, let's clear one other thing up: I don't care whether you care that I read it.
Sure you do, dickhead.
Yes, based on that. There is quite enough empty posturing in that article to make the criticism of the review appear likely to hold true.
You mean I can pick one of Paul Krugman's NY Times' articles and one poorly written negative review of his work for the public, and based on the judgements I make from reading those two things, they would likely hold true for the rest of Krugman's work as well? Do you read anything anymore beyond links here in The Mote and Danish-lanaguage material for pedophiles ? What are some of the serious books you've read in the last year?
continued ...
96. PincherMartin - 8/6/2002 5:12:11 PM
From what I have seen [Hanson] is also prone to sweeping generalisations, and he has this odd idea that the fact that America produces technologies that are in demand by others, including America's enemies somehow in itself shows how hypocritical they are.
The line on medicine was obviously a throwaway, not in the least central to his main point in the essay. One could take a similar tack with any essay, column or book one reads if one wanted an excuse not to like it. Please link to an essay or book that doesn't have similar contradictions, exaggerations, generalizations, etc.
I described the essay as "good." Not great. Not fascinating or seminal. Just "good." I am certainly open to other views as to its quality, but I don't want to listen to some snide dickhead as he searches for reasons not to like it before he even reads it.
97. jexster - 8/6/2002 5:27:10 PM
Policy: Any U.S. military action against Iraq should first be approved by the U.N., some say. Popular opposition to an attack is growing in Europe.
98. jexster - 8/6/2002 5:35:24 PM
99. Marc-Albert - 8/6/2002 6:18:21 PM
"Popular opposition to an attack is growing in Europe."
Again, that brings us back to Kagan's viewpoint on Europe's accute awareness of its own impotence, not to say irrelevance.
If the USSR was still extant, the Frech minister of Foreign Affairs would be busy concocting a common stance with the Soviet in order to counterweight l'hyperpuissance américaine.
100. alistairConnor - 8/6/2002 7:50:15 PM
True, European support is probably not crucial to the viability of a US attack on Iraq. (though that perhaps depends on whether you include Turkey in "Europe").
Arab support most certainly is.
101. alistairConnor - 8/7/2002 12:26:12 AM
Ha! A certain David Cohen is telling fibs about New Zealand in the Judaeo-Christian Science Monitor, as is his wont...
New Zealand debate over gene-modified food heats up
The guy interviewed, an old acquaintance of mine, is a right-wing ratbag, just like the interviewer. The alleged journalist flirts with dishonesty by concealing the pertinent fact that the appropriately named Mr Rainbow (once red, then green, now blue) is a member of the National Party (more precisely, of its "BlueGreen" clique, a sort of environmentalist figleaf) who were so thoroughly trounced in last month's election.
He should be ashamed. They both should.
102. jexster - 8/7/2002 1:12:23 AM
103. jexster - 8/7/2002 1:18:43 AM
Les oppositions à une guerre contre Saddam Hussein se renforcent
104. stostosto - 8/7/2002 9:35:44 PM
You mean I can pick one of Paul Krugman's NY Times' articles and one poorly written negative review of his work for the public, and based on the judgements I make from reading those two things, they would likely hold true for the rest of Krugman's work as well?
Depends on your judgmental skills. They don't seem very impressive.
I told you I had seen some other piece by Hanson which already had me eye-rolling, then you link an article and quote a passage which, supposedly, is a high-light; it's a silly passage and totally consistent with my first impression of the man. I am honestly surprised that you, you PincherMartin, take him seriously, which, by the way, you are free to interpret as a compliment, as in "I expect better from you".
Then I make a search and find that review which is also in line with my perception. Nothing self-serving about that, and I post the link as a courtesy for your pleasant enlightenment.
There.
Please link to an essay or book that doesn't have similar contradictions, exaggerations, generalizations, etc
It's not that Hanson have them, it's that he has nothing but.
And I just did link such an essay, the Kagan essay which I highly recommend.
Do you read anything anymore beyond links here in The Mote and Danish-lanaguage material for pedophiles ? What are some of the serious books you've read in the last year?
Who's snide, huh, side-parting man? But it's an interesting question, so I'll give you some.
Peter Jay: Road to Riches - or The Wealth of Man
Poul Nyboe Andersen: Thorkil Kristensen - en ener i dansk politik
Herbert Pundik: Det kan ikke ske i Danmark
Mark Mazower: Dark Continent. Europe's twentieth century
Karl-Erik Frandsen: Kongens og folkets København gennem 800 år.
Micklethwait & Wooldridge: A Future Perfect.
105. stostosto - 8/7/2002 9:36:39 PM
I also read some novels and am currently trying, trying for the umpteenth time, to get into Gibson's "Neuromancer".
One I am considering, btw, is Fukuyama's latest "The Post-human future". Have you read that one? If so, what's your opinion? (I do have my opinions about Fukuyama too, as you may recall).
106. PincherMartin - 8/8/2002 12:36:23 AM
Depends on your judgmental skills. They don't seem very impressive.
Making broad conclusions about Krugman's scholarship -- as you did on Hanson's -- based on reading one of his columns and one critical review of his popular work is ridiculous, no matter what your judgements is like.
Your case is not significantly strengthened by claiming that you've actually read two of his columns.
...it's a silly passage and totally consistent with my first impression of the man. I am honestly surprised that you, you PincherMartin, take him seriously, which, by the way, you are free to interpret as a compliment, as in "I expect better from you"..
It was a good article. It asks questions -- which you totally ignored -- like what kind of results can the U.S. expect by spending more money on overseas propaganda and is there any correlation between what the U.S. does overseas and the level of hatred directed at it.
It is not a scholarly piece, nor is it meant to be. It is an opinion piece, and as such is filled with opinions -- many of which are not elaborated on or defended. But as these kinds of opinion columns go, it's a good one.
continued ...
107. PincherMartin - 8/8/2002 12:36:45 AM
Then I make a search and find that review which is also in line with my perception. Nothing self-serving about that, and I post the link as a courtesy for your pleasant enlightenment.
You would like Carnage and Culture despite your predilections and despite the review you linked to. Like me, you would probably find that is significantly overreaches in its claims. But unlike so many other books which also have too bold of a thesis, Carnage and Culture makes you enjoy the ride as you go along.
It is a popular book, however, and not up to the solid work of his scholarship on the Greek hoplite phalanx formation and why it was so devastating a military tool against its opponents (and sometimes against itself). Hanson makes the claim in The Western Way of War that the Western idea of a "decisive battle" came out of this Greek experience. It is a superb book.
108. PincherMartin - 8/8/2002 12:41:21 AM
...ener i dansk...
...Det kan ikke ske...
...Kongens og folkets...
You see, I guessed right. You are reading a lot of Danish-language material for pedophiles.
109. jexster - 8/10/2002 1:24:23 AM
Scratch Britain...
Published on Friday, August 9, 2002 in the lndependent/UK
Iraq War Could Engulf Region, Britain Warns US
by Kim Sengupta
Britain has strongly advised the United States against attacking Iraq, warning that it risked intensifying the conflicts in Afghanistan, Israel and Kashmir, senior defense and diplomatic sources say.
In a sign of deepening discord between the two allies, British ministers and officials in Whitehall believe that a new war would "contaminate" the other crises."These are issues the Americans appear not to have considered," said one official.
They also have grave reservations about President George Bush's demand for a "regime change" in Baghdad because, London believes, no alternative regime has been identified for such a change to take place. Britain may be lumbered with leading a massive stabilization force for "up to five years" in an anarchic post-war Iraq, with the prospect of the country being partitioned.
While Britain is certain that Saddam Hussein has acquired some form of chemical and biological weapons capacity since the United Nations weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq, ministers have seen no evidence that he can use them in any meaningful way against the West.
America has countered the British worries by maintaining that each conflict in the region can be contained and that it is impractical to wait for every issue to be resolved before taking action against President Saddam, according to the officials.
110. ronski - 8/10/2002 1:30:00 AM
Typical from The Independent.
111. jexster - 8/11/2002 4:07:54 AM
RULE BRITTANIA!
Attack on Iraq rejected by 2 in 3 voters - Daily Telegraph
112. jexster - 8/11/2002 6:32:11 PM
Bobby Kagan Meet Friedrich von Bernhardi
Consider the ruminations of General Friedrich von Bernhardi (1849-1930) who, according to the introduction to the English edition of his book, was "the outstanding military writer of his day. He was chief of the war historical section of the General Staff from 1898 to 1901. Later, writing about the Second Moroccan Crisis in 1909, while the commanding general of the Seventh Army Corps, Bernhardi [could] scarcely disguise his impatience and alarm over the government's lack of determination. . . . The choice was expansionism or certain death, 'world power or decline.' Invoking a higher morality, geopolitics, and the logic of history . . . Bernhardi advocated aggressive war, for which the nation had to be prepared materially and psychologically. Negotiating conflicts of interest between the Great Powers could not be considered a serious option. It was rather a sign of weakness. He preached the necessity of war with an urgency bordering on panic. [Germany and the Next War (New York, 1914) Translated by Allen H. Powles]
This mindset naturally led to a theory of pre-emption, which according to Bernhardi, goes as follows: "[The State] must, before all things, develop the attacking powers of its army, since a strategic defensive must often adopt offensive methods. . . and strike the first blow . . . Above all, a state which has objects to attain that cannot be relinquished, and is exposed to attacks by enemies more powerful than itself, is bound to act in this sense."
General Bernhardi also comments derisively on states whose peoples desire peace:
113. jexster - 8/11/2002 6:32:42 PM
"Since 1795, when Immanuel Kant published in his old age his treatise On Perpetual Peace, many have considered it an established fact that war is the destruction of all good and the origin of all evil …[But] this desire for peace has rendered most civilized nations anemic, and marks a decay of spirit and political courage such as has often been shown by a race of Epigoni. 'It has always been,' H[einrich] von Treitschke tells us, 'the weary, spiritless, and exhausted ages which have played with the dream of perpetual peace.'"
Robert Kagan has chided the gutless Europeans in much the same manner as Bernhardi upbraided his more fainthearted countrymen, even to the inclusion of a sarcastic reference to Kant: "It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power - the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power - American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant's 'Perpetual Peace.'"
Needless to say, Kagan, like Bernhardi, believes dreams of peace are a silly illusion; Americans, he thinks, correctly have "little to make them place their faith in international law and international institutions." Better stick with power, a totem which, as we have seen, Kagan bathes in an almost Freudian devotion. ["Power and Weakness" by Robert Kagan, Policy Review, June 2002]. The Werther Report
114. RickNelson - 8/12/2002 2:48:00 PM
The Agong visits the award winning long-house village of Long Bidian (up river from Long Atip-see map).There was a grant to spruce up the village and many beautiful traditional designs were painted throughout the long-house. The cerimonial King and Queen are said to have taken in their visit with grace and style.
While the Queen took time to walk the veranda and observe kitchens, fruit trees and visit, the king sought the company of the village head-man. The Agong spent a little time within his kitchen, observing and chatting freely, while obtaining some snacks. The style complimented and impressed all present. A very pleasant occasion.
From: The Star online
Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Ceremonial welcome in Sarawak for royal couple 
KUCHING: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Syed Sirajuddin Syed Putra Jamalullail and Raja Permaisuri Agong Tuanku Fauziah Tengku Abdul Rashid were accorded a ceremonial welcome when they arrived at the airport here for their first official visit to Sarawak.
They will tour a traditional longhouse, Rumah Panjang Long Bedian in Baram in the interior region of northern Sarawak, tomorrow.
115. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 8/13/2002 4:50:51 AM
Now this is the kind of news my person likes to be informed of.
116. Marc-Albert - 8/13/2002 3:00:47 PM
Sir Charles Brooke, G.C.M.G. Second Rajah of Sarawak.
Sarawak used to have its own "indigenous" rulers: the White Rajahs of Sarawak. Steven Runciman's The White Rajahs, is excellent, particularly for the founding period of the "Raj".
117. RickNelson - 8/13/2002 3:24:00 PM
Marc-Albert,
Sarawak has an rich history, have you visited yet? I've been twice, visiting my wifes family and all we could see during a month. It requires a minimum of a month to take in so much. The remnants of the former Rajah era are the Astana estate, Kuching museum, and many forts along the river tributaries. I've been to the museum and the fort in Marudi.
118. Marc-Albert - 8/13/2002 4:06:23 PM
No Rick. I never went to Asia. My limited knowledge of Sarawak is derived from a pen-pal from Kutching I used to correspond with (and exchange stamps) in the early 60s and the Runciman book, that I read avidly soon after it was published during those years (Rajah James steaming up-river in his paddle boat to fight pirates!)
Are the natives inhabitants happy with peninsular rule? I vaguely remember reading some UN-based criticism of some low-level human right abuses against Sarawak dissidents. Apparently Kuala Lumpur did not take kindly to secessionnist activities there or in Sabah.
119. RickNelson - 8/13/2002 6:47:35 PM
"Are the natives inhabitants happy with peninsular rule?"
There are many distinct native groups within Sarawak and Sabah respectively. The answer is that it depends which of these you belong. My wife’s tribe(and I am not speaking for them) might consider the rule to be semi-beneficial. They have gained toward education, which the esteem. They have gained toward connecting to new resources. However, they have lost much of their land and native customary rights. This has occurred since independence and acquisition of Sarawak by peninsular Malaysia in the early 60's. There are political ties strengthening between the two land masses as well.
Within Sabah the party, National or UMNO has a very strong presence now. When this happened semi-autonomy for Sabah ended. This is not desirable to all Sabahan, perhaps especially to the Kadazan. Within Sarawak, there is no such occurrence, yet!
The organized members of UMNO are always trying to avert autonomous leanings from up-and-coming deputy ministers, headmen, Temanengong, Pemancha or Penghulu (respectively, supreme, district and village chiefs).
If Sarawak has any hope of controlling more than the current 2% of its natural resource wealth it must attain autonomy. Not separation, they don't strive for that, separation is dissent, they want to have more self government of natural resources.
The K.L. government has long held power of decree over the national resources, but in this case it includes customary native rights, which have been wholly ignored.
120. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 8/16/2002 5:35:11 PM
121. concerned - 8/17/2002 12:34:23 PM
Hoogstraten "to buy" MiGs for Mugabe
I've posted here before regarding Mugabe's destruction of Zimbabwe by destroying its ability to raise food, and some from the Left have objected, claiming that what Mugabe is really doing, facts aside, is righting colonialist wrongs. What would they have to say about this base venality of Mugabe's?
122. jexster - 8/18/2002 5:51:54 AM
Back us against Saddam or else, US tells Arab states (Daily Telegraph)
Bahrain to Bush - Bent
Guess he got his answer.
123. Marc-Albert - 8/18/2002 5:01:38 PM
"American diplomats are sending an uncompromising message to Arab states: those who do not support the planned United States operation against Saddam Hussein will be treated as enemies."
Now that's pretty heavy styff. Who said that? American diplomats or the Daily Telegraph? I did read the rest of the DT article but there is absolutely nothing there that demonstrate the US indeed intends to treat "as enemies" any Arab state that does not back the operation.
If one is to believe the DT reporter, then Bahrain, that just declared against the operation, should be proclaimed an enemy of the United States of America any day now...
Another piece of crummy British journalism is the Sunday Observer article linked by Jexter three weeks ago (Saudi Arabia could fall to al-Qaeda)
If one is to believe that Guardian/Observer piece, Saudi Arabia is in a freefall: "Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink of collapse"..."Anti-government demonstrations have swept the desert kingdom"..."Demonstrations across the kingdom broke out in March"..."Unrest in the east of the country rapidly escalated into nationwide protests against the royal family...
It does seem that it's only a matter of months, nay, weeks, before Saudi Arabia indeed falls to al-Qaeda or other revolutionaries.
The problem with the Guardian/Observer article is that it's been three weeks now, and nobody else seems to have noticed that "Saudi Arabia is teetering on the brink of collapse". Neither the world press nor the Saudis, who seem to be going agout their usual business, seem to have noticed yet what is so obvious to all those shrewd British reporters.
124. jexster - 8/18/2002 5:14:01 PM
Speak Up, Europe
Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay
Financial Times, August 8, 2002
125. marjoribanks - 8/18/2002 6:11:19 PM
I will be rather busy for the next few months, thus my presence here will be spotty. Out of habit, however, I will continue to monitor this thread.
--
I recently checked out Rajeev Srinivasan's columns and found that he's somewhat improved and matured as a commentator, and so is perhaps a bit less entertaining.
But on his pet topic, India versus China, he's on top form and pretty compelling. read this.
126. concerned - 8/19/2002 7:07:24 PM
Lefties approve of Zimbabwe ethnic cleansing
127. jexster - 8/19/2002 11:17:12 PM
THat's right white boy...get you honky ass out of those running short and over to the farm
128. jexster - 8/19/2002 11:17:34 PM
over to - "off de"
129. concerned - 8/20/2002 12:00:32 AM
Coming soon to Zim: The Big Hunger.
130. alistairConnor - 8/20/2002 12:03:31 AM
I will be rather busy for the next few months, thus my presence here will be spotty.
Juvenile acne. You'll grow out of it, Marj boy.
131. concerned - 8/20/2002 7:15:14 PM
'Funny' ideas about humor in Sweden, I'd say, from the Jerusalem Post:
Swedish TV apologizes for anti-Semitic slurs
By TOVAH LAZAROFF
Swedish Television has apologized for airing a show earlier this month in which Jews were accused of profiting from the Holocaust and were linked to the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. The controversy over the segment was reported in a number of Swedish papers.
"We do regret what was said," said Swedish Television's communications director, Helga Baagoe. "To say it was in bad taste is not strong enough."
Lisa Abramowicz, a board member of Stockholm's Jewish community, said that although the show Tredje Makten (Third Power), which airs on Wednesday nights at 10 p.m., is satirical, that segment crossed the line into anti-Semitism.
And there have been other anti-Semitic incidents in the Swedish media, Abramowicz said.
According to a transcript she provided, the segment narrated by a goldfish talks about the holocaust, "After all, this persecution did come up trumps it gave the Jews their own land..It isn't always a bad thing to be the victim of persecution."
The narrator continues, "And the German state and the Swiss banks have had to pay financial compensation amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars."
The narrator also said, "And let's face it: The Jews have never in their history been stronger than they are today. Incidentally, did you know that this fund was officially created in New York and was to be inaugurated in conjunction with the Jewish World Congress on the 11th of September 2001?" And then the screen showed a picture of the attack on the World Trade Center, Abramowicz said.
"It was shocking," she said. "There was no such fund created on September 11, 2001, and even if there were, what relevance would it have to the attack?"
132. stostosto - 8/20/2002 8:59:25 PM
Jaysus, how idiotic. I hadn't heard of that incident, but that very same show created a bit of a stir here in Denmark by "humorously" suggesting that the Danish tightening of our immigration regime was due to our love of pigs. You see, Muslims don't eat pork. And then they made an animated transformation of the leader of our xenophobic party into a pig.
They're not racist, or un-PC, I think. They're just massively untalented on that show. But it's no small irony that such a show can air on the public channel in self-perceived goody-goody PC Sween.
What's your take, Pelle? Are you finally gearing up to change your ways into something less otherwordly over there? A shattering of your status as "the Moral Superpower" in the offing, conducted by subversive fifth-columnists? (Notice, btw, that the apologising spokeswoman of the national TV, Helga Baagoe, has a Danish name..! Spooooooky!)
133. PelleNilsson - 8/20/2002 9:48:09 PM
sto
I haven't seen the program because I never watch television, except sports, but I've read about it and heard people talk about it. It seems there is no agenda involved, just massive lack of talent and judgement.
And we have, more or less, given up on the Moral Superpower thing years ago, but our neighbours haven't noticed. Of course, 400 years of Swedish general superiority will leave its marks.
134. robertjayb - 8/21/2002 2:43:26 AM
Guy must think he's John Ashcroft...
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Aug. 21 — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan single-handedly enacted 29 amendments to his country's Constitution today, granting himself near-dictatorial powers.
135. marjoribanks - 8/21/2002 3:55:38 PM
The New York Review of books has two articles of interest to thread regulars in its current issue.
The piece on Stiglitz's book is good, the article by Pankaj Mishra on the Gujerat atrocities is superlative. I'm availabale to discuss the latter should there be any takers.
136. marjoribanks - 8/21/2002 3:58:41 PM
If anyone is interested, the now totally irritating Arundhati Roy is touring Pakistan and drawing big crowds with a quasi-populist, "don't trust your government" message to both Indians and Pakistanis.
Arundhati does Pak.
137. jexster - 8/21/2002 5:07:03 PM
panjak mishra?
Gujerat attrocities?
EEEK...no wonder I don't come around here much...I thought this was an International not a Wooly Wog thread...Jex repellent...EEEEEEEEEE
138. pseudoerasmus - 8/21/2002 8:27:17 PM
Briefly checking in: a grossly
underreported news item is
surely the government-controlled
Turkish ulema's decision to
henceforth permit menstruating
women to attend mosque prayer
services.... Now Jexster can
enter mosques at his pleasure
in Turkey.
139. pseudoerasmus - 8/21/2002 8:28:24 PM
(However, I am not sure
whether the Turkish
ulema's decision applies
to Jexster's exsphincteraneous
menses.)
140. concerned - 8/21/2002 10:31:33 PM
What would the Wahhabi Lobby have to say about that?
141. Andonly - 8/22/2002 12:18:04 AM
Thank you, Margarinespanks, for that Pankaj Mishra link. I like Mishra.
"On February 27, some of these [Hindu] activists were returning on a train from Ayodhya when a crowd of Muslims attacked and set fire to one of the cars just outside the town of Godhra in Gujarat."
Mention of this event was actually preceded by the word "allegedly" in an article in the FT yesterday. As in, 'train allegedly attacked by Muslims'.
There is of course no doubt about what Hindus did in return.
142. concerned - 8/22/2002 8:24:15 AM
It was only alleged to be a train since it was a little hard to tell afterwards, which probably resulted in the journalistic confusion you refer to.
143. concerned - 8/22/2002 8:26:18 AM
When you're starving for a MugabeMeal:
144. concerned - 8/22/2002 8:32:04 AM
145. concerned - 8/22/2002 8:36:21 AM
Say, 'progressives': what are your comments on Mugabe's land redistribution programs? How can enlightened socialism progress when Leftists always behave as if they are so ashamed of the results that they refuse to contribute to or critique the process?
146. concerned - 8/22/2002 8:48:55 AM
Buying the cattle is war veteran Passmore Chanyuka. He led farm invasions for the last two years and has been given a plot and wants to become a farmer. "I want the government to give us money so that we can be successful farmers," he says.
Ha ha ha ha!
147. stostosto - 8/22/2002 5:44:49 PM
Pelle #25332
And we have, more or less, given up on the Moral Superpower thing years ago, but our neighbours haven't noticed.
Perhaps it would help people's ability to notice if the perception wasn't so frequently fueled, like when Swedish minister of integration(?) Mona Sahlin caused a row this spring by criticising the Danish immigration policy in strongly moral terms. Of course, there are lots of people here who dearly cherish the good old stereotypes and jump at any such opportunity to pigeon-hole the Swedes as unbearable moralisers.
Such stuff invariably hits the front page of our most populist tabloid, Ekstra Bladet.
148. marjoribanks - 8/22/2002 5:52:56 PM
Hey Sto, I just heard that a rather hip young Indian writer, Tabish Khair, has upped and moved to, of all places, your own Copenhagen.
If he surfaces for a reading or something you should check him out. He's cheeky.
149. robertjayb - 8/22/2002 5:56:05 PM
"I want the government to give us money so that we can be successful farmers," he says.
Passmore has been reading up on American agribusiness.
150. concerned - 8/22/2002 6:00:04 PM
rjb -
Your wit is irony deficient.
151. jexster - 8/22/2002 6:24:26 PM
"[B]usharraf is My Terror Ally"
("IslamoFascist") Power Grab in Pakistan
"The Bush policy today is to punish its enemies with the threat of democracy and reward its friends with silence on democratization." T. Friedman
152. marjoribanks - 8/22/2002 6:33:51 PM
It's more than a bit ridiculous to call Musharraf an "Islamofascist", since he's about the strongest anti-jihadi bulwark that Pakistan has or has had in a good long time.
Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with his continued consolidation of sole power. He should be aided in this by the USA.
153. concerned - 8/22/2002 6:45:55 PM
Furthermore, I see nothing wrong with his continued consolidation of sole power.
I see several things wrong with his assuming dictatorial powers, which is not to say that his doing so may not be among the least of possible evils. After all, we are discussing one of the most backward places on earth.
One significant down side is that regurgito-Lefties may be encouraged to to incorporate this into their pantheon of Greek tragedies, as Jexster gives early signs of doing.
154. concerned - 8/22/2002 6:46:48 PM
one 'to' many.
156. stostosto - 8/22/2002 7:01:27 PM
one 'to' many.
and one 'too' too few.
marj:
Never heard of that Tabish Khair guy. Do you have a link? (I wonder how he managed to sneak in under our new! improved! immigration radar, btw).
157. marjoribanks - 8/22/2002 7:07:49 PM
Sto:
Khair.
159. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2002 10:02:29 PM
#25354 and 357 were move to the Inferno.
160. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2002 10:04:07 PM
marj
Pincher has resigned. Would you be prepared to co-host?
161. concerned - 8/22/2002 10:16:43 PM
My 25352 still awaits a substantive response.
162. Andonly - 8/22/2002 10:16:45 PM
AND the award for the day's Finest Dry Lines goes to...
...it's a tie! Ladies and Gentlemen, the award will be shared by Concerned, for Message # 25341, and Robertjayb, for Message # 25348.
Congratuations, gentlemen. In honor of your achievement you shall each receive All-You-Can-Eat passes for yourselves and three of your favorite local politicians, good at any Red Lobster; plus your choice of selected dry red or white wines from upper New York state; and a commemorative packet of silica.
Now let me conclude my remarks this evening by saying that the nsme "Passmore Chanyuka" is just flatulently antisemitic.
163. concerned - 8/22/2002 10:19:43 PM
Pelle -
marj should only be allowed to co host this thread if his personal abuse, vengeful tendencies and unreasoning prejudice can be restrained. Are you prepared to guarantee that?
164. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2002 10:30:37 PM
sto
I agree that Mona Sahlin wasn´t very tactful. She probably got her fingers slapped by prime minister Persson because she has been remarkably quiet since (on that issue, that is).
But it is not true, as many Danes seem to believe, that the debate on immigration here is somehow stifled just because it is less heated and, if I may say so, less vulgar, than in Denmark. We have already had your debate, more than ten years ago when Count Wachtmeister and his populist New Democrats were elected to parliament.
165. stostosto - 8/22/2002 11:56:23 PM
Pelle, it's definitely true that the common perception in Denmark, whether right or left, pro or contra xenophobism, is that the debate is and has been stifled in Sweden. I don't know what to think, really. Naturally, if you have found a formula of peaceful, fruitful and constructive co-existence in a multi-ethnic society, we have a lot to learn from you.
I fear, however, that the debate that you say you have already had ten years ago (when there was also a debate here, it has been a constant waxing and waning at least since 1985 when we had an incident at a center for asylum seekers), has yet to fully be enacted.
I am not all that outraged about Mona Sahlin, btw. I think it's fair to criticise the Danish tightening, it really does impinge on people's rights. For heaven's sake you can't marry a foreigner and bring him/her to the country, for instance! In order to do that, you would have to submit yourself to the mercy of a suspicious bunch of immigration officials who will scrutinise you and your spouse and the reasons for you wanting to live in this country instead of the spouse's country and establish that you have means to provide for yourself and spouse, and a "reasonable" place of residence, and that you are both over 24 years of age, and that your combined attachment to this country (including extended family) is greater than the attachment to the spouse's country of origin.
There is certainly room for reasonable criticism.
An excellent brief article on the new Danish immigration laws, including the rift with Sweden, courtesy of Neue Zürcher Zeitung (don't worry, it's in English)
166. stostosto - 8/23/2002 12:19:22 AM
But, whatever else you may think of the Danish tightening, it works as intended. The number of immigration whether through family reunification or refugees has dropped sharply since its inception. The debate now is how the budgetary savings -- quite significant savings actually estimated at ½-1% of GDP -- should be spent. Lower taxes? Better health care? Consolidating public finances?
Ah, there will always be pesky problems and contentious issues, that's politics for you...
---
I will say one more thing, because I think I should in the spirit of honesty: I think it's actually a positive development that we have fewer foreigners coming in. I don't say this lightly. But I have become wary of some of the Muslim currents in our immigrant population, and also some of the general attitude towards this society among their youth.
I don't want to have students in our high schools criticise standard curriculum modern literature on the basis of the Koran, or take exception to Darwin, or refuse to "bare" themselves in gymnastics lessons.
I am appalled at what some extremist groups will spout of sick theories of the Khalifate, and openly calling for the murder of Jews, citing the Koran.
I resent that some of their imams, and not the least outspoken ones are teaching intolerance and are intimidating fellow Muslims into supporting them, or at least acquiescing in their excesses.
Then there are arranged marriages, sexual oppression, and a galling contempt for girls among young men. One result, and this is sadly true, is the introduction of the hitherto unknown phenomenon of gang rape here.
Much of this behavioural pattern can be explained as a reaction to Danish society's rejection and marginalisation of these people due to intolerance or racism, overt but mostly covert. That doesn't really help the situation though.
167. stostosto - 8/23/2002 12:20:11 AM
But, whatever else you may think of the Danish tightening, it works as intended. The number of immigration whether through family reunification or refugees has dropped sharply since its inception. The debate now is how the budgetary savings -- quite significant savings actually estimated at ½-1% of GDP -- should be spent. Lower taxes? Better health care? Consolidating public finances?
Ah, there will always be pesky problems and contentious issues, that's politics for you...
---
I will say one more thing, because I think I should in the spirit of honesty: I think it's actually a positive development that we have fewer foreigners coming in. I don't say this lightly. But I have become wary of some of the Muslim currents in our immigrant population, and also some of the general attitude towards this society among their youth.
I don't want to have students in our high schools criticise standard curriculum modern literature on the basis of the Koran, or take exception to Darwin, or refuse to "bare" themselves in gymnastics lessons.
I am appalled at what some extremist groups will spout of sick theories of the Khalifate, and openly calling for the murder of Jews, citing the Koran.
I resent that some of their imams, and not the least outspoken ones are teaching intolerance and are intimidating fellow Muslims into supporting them, or at least acquiescing in their excesses.
Then there are arranged marriages, sexual oppression, and a galling contempt for girls among young men. One result, and this is sadly true, is the introduction of the hitherto unknown phenomenon of gang rape here.
Much of this behavioural pattern can be explained as a reaction to Danish society's rejection and marginalisation of these people due to intolerance or racism, overt but mostly covert. That doesn't really help the situation though.
168. stostosto - 8/23/2002 12:21:58 AM
Oops, double post, sorry. I was "timed out" in my first posting attempt, so I tried again.
169. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 8/23/2002 3:08:32 AM
Being quiet the international connosewer, the good doctor shall of course serve as host of this domicile provided the other wight step aside.
Unlike Marjorie, yours truly is known thruout the so-called "Mote" as impartial and suave or fair.
Need the rest of you be reminded.
Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane, Conscious of the Mote
170. PelleNilsson - 8/23/2002 9:21:08 AM
sto
Naturally, if you have found a formula of peaceful, fruitful and constructive co-existence in a multi-ethnic society, we have a lot to learn from you.
No I don't claim that, not by a long shot, but I maintain that, just because the debate here is not as viscious as it is in Denmark, it is "stifled". The immigration question is simply not a hot issue here although, as you probably know, we have elections coming up in three weeks.
171. concerned - 8/23/2002 9:41:31 AM
The immigration question is simply not a hot issue here...
Can you elaborate a bit on the factors which lead to such a divergent perception as compared to the environment Stos is describing?
172. PelleNilsson - 8/23/2002 11:09:56 AM
It is not an easy thing ta anlyse. But you should know that Denmark and Sweden, although superficially similar - monarchies, parlamentary democracies, welfare states, mutually intelligble (with some difficulty) languages - there are substantial differences as well. Sweden has raw materials and lots of heavy industry, Denmark is more oriented towards agriculture, food processing and services such as shipping. The historical experience is different as well. Denmark dominated Scandinavia until the 16th century, but since then it steadily lost territory to Sweden and Prussia/Germany.
Sweden was also an emigration country. Around the turn of the last century about 25% of the population emigrated to the US. The emigration was largely poverty-driven. Denmark was a richer country then and so less people left. The great emigration is still a living memory here. It is possible (although this is pure speculation) that Swedes have a bit more emphaty with people who seek a better future in a foreign country.
But we also have a long history of immigration It started in the 1950s with Italians who were recruited to jobs in Swedish industry and refugees from the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and continued with waves of Jugoslavs, Turks and Iranians (they came in two waves, first the ones who fled the Shah, then thos wo fled Khomeini).
173. PelleNilsson - 8/23/2002 11:26:41 AM
But in the immediate past, the most important event was the one I referred to in Message # 25363. The populist agitation led to some very ugly incidents such as fire-bombings of immigrant hostels and murders of immigrants just because they were immigrants. The general public was shocked. Such things do not fit in (to put it mildly) with Swedes' perception of their society. As a result the populist party disintegrated in the next elections.
That is not to say that things are idyllic here, They are not. But the debate on immigration and integration is no longer dominated by xenophobic, populist demagoguery. It is now more seen as a technical thing. Given that the situation is what it is, how should we best handle it?
174. concerned - 8/23/2002 11:57:33 AM
Mugabe Dissolves Cabinet in Shock Move
"His Excellency, the President, Comrade R.G. Mugabe, today, 23rd August, 2002, dissolved cabinet," said the statement signed by George Charamba, Mugabe's spokesperson.
"I think there is a realisation on his part that legally he was on slippery ground," said Lovemore Madhuku, chairperson of the National Constitutional Assembly, a coalition of civic groups. Madhuku said he did not expect any major shifts in policy even if new faces were brought into cabinet.
Mugabe on 'slippery legal ground'?!? Not possible. He is the law.
'His Excellency, Comrade Mugabe': His 'progressive' supporters have to love that.
175. concerned - 8/23/2002 12:15:31 PM
I have seen little criticism of Japanese immigration policies here, a policy which pretty much denies anybody not of Japanese extraction full citizenship status, yet nobody appears to felt that there is anything unusual about this, let alone publicly accusing Japan, as a leading industrial nation, of demonstrating cultural insensitivity, let alone implementing xenophobic or discriminatory policies toward immigrants. Of course, there is also little, if any discussion elsewhere about this, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
176. concerned - 8/23/2002 12:16:27 PM
...appears to feel...
177. Marc-Albert - 8/23/2002 2:50:18 PM
About 200 Kurds landed on the beaches of Santa Maria di Leuca this morning. They will most likely attempt to get into Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Germany as soon as they can.
By 2020 or before, I would think that the majority of Kurds will be living in Western Europe. Je vous souhaite bien du plaisir.
178. concerned - 8/24/2002 3:22:54 AM
Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row
This would weigh in favor of the US overthrowing the Saddam regime, since Saddam is training or attempting to train Islamic extremists.
179. concerned - 8/26/2002 6:16:51 PM
What Denmark can teach America about dealing with Muslims
Reading this article, I can understand Sto's viewpoint more clearly.
I found the following to be particularly disturbing:
Self-imposed isolation. Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.
Seeking Islamic law . Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's Muslim population grows large enough - a not-that remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in forty years will be Muslim.
I really am starting to believe that the Left has no commitment to the separation of Church and State in actuality but simply want to use it to bludgeon Christians with, or they would be much more concerned about Muslim intentions to introduce religious laws in other countries.
180. jexster - 8/26/2002 7:13:09 PM
Holy Haj Batman!
Yes BoyBlunder?
LONDON (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) is firmly back in command of al Qaeda and the group is digging in for guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan ( news - web sites), an Arab journalist with close ties to the militant's associates said on Tuesday.
181. concerned - 8/26/2002 7:19:05 PM
You don't really believe that, jexster.
182. PelleNilsson - 8/26/2002 7:28:27 PM
Oh, dear, Daniel Pipes again. That chap is really deteriorating. It seems this former scholar will put his name to any kind of gibberish as long as it is anti-Muslim.
I'm fairly sure that sto would be horrified to be placed in the same box as the co-author, Lars Hedegaard.
183. concerned - 8/26/2002 7:33:30 PM
Pelle -
Are you doubting the statistics he mentions?
184. PelleNilsson - 8/26/2002 7:37:03 PM
I don't doubt that you don't doubt them.
185. concerned - 8/26/2002 7:38:49 PM
Pelle -
It sounds as if you are not very concerned about the social reality in Denmark, to me. You have your preconceptions, and they are enough for you.
186. concerned - 8/26/2002 7:40:21 PM
Can you present a case that there is no cause for concern in Denmark, Pelle?
187. concerned - 8/26/2002 7:42:17 PM
Or have I missed something? Is it usual to pass laws favoring one religion or another in European countries?
188. concerned - 8/26/2002 7:51:48 PM
Who lost Denmark?;)
189. PelleNilsson - 8/26/2002 7:52:11 PM
It is not unheard of. An extract from the Danish constitution of 1992:
Section 4 [State Church]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State.
190. concerned - 8/26/2002 8:06:43 PM
Of course, something may occur to moderate the Islamism of Denmarks's immigrants. However, that trend is not apparent to me, yet. I would hardly claim a triumph of 'multiculturalism' in a country if the eventual result was its governance by an intolerant theocracy.
191. robertjayb - 8/26/2002 10:59:26 PM
Bushies, Oilygarchs, diss renewable energy...
Aug. 27, 2002 | Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA (AP) -- To the outrage of environmentalists, the United States, Saudi Arabia and other nations at a U.N. summit worked Tuesday to water down promises to rapidly expand the use of clean, renewable energy technologies around the globe.
192. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 8/27/2002 1:40:47 AM
193. jexster - 8/27/2002 1:45:40 AM
An appalling show of incompetent leadership, the blunder continues...
Bush Bumbles On: Blair Complains Bush Has Done Nothing To Make His Case, Support His Friends
194. concerned - 8/28/2002 1:07:35 AM
Arab League to participate in Holocaust denial symposium
What's really neat about Holocaust denial is that if you can get people to buy into it, is that you can exterminate Jews again and again, and profess to have forgotten about any such incidents.
So, to those into Holocaust denial, when you see pictures like the following:
just pretend that no Jews ever died in places like Belsen and Auschwitz. All such pictures were faked by the International Cartel of Jews or Elders of Zion or whatever shit you're deluding yourself this week.
195. concerned - 8/28/2002 1:08:59 AM
oops - typos
196. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 5:41:09 PM
Interesting events in Kenya.
197. wabbit - 8/29/2002 6:24:07 PM
I've recreated this thread in hopes that this past week's error message problem will be alleviated. Please see Message # 4064 in thread 27. The same has been done here.
198. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 11:00:15 PM
Farty-fart.
199. jexster - 9/1/2002 5:01:25 PM
Jexster Wonk's Tips for Research on the Net
Today's Tip - Bush Foreign Policy
Keywords & Phrases - unyielding, disengaged, "widening gulf", "support has evaporated", dismissive, distorted, confusing, inconsistent, "at war with itself", adrift, estranged, ignored, unsure, "uncomfortable impasse", despair, "not helpful", "in for a rough ride", shifted, rejiggered, died, "human rights abuses", "anti-democratic practices", betrayal, diengaged, "ruputured relations", "strained ties", "fret away", unilateralism, "no real rapport", embarrassing, immodest, arrogant, disarray, cowboy, "too many ideologues", "too many people with baggage", uncertain, "twists and turns", fig leaf, unreal, teetering, "edge of failure", railing, undermining, untrustworthy
"Dallas syndrome" - A JexieWonk Favorite!
"Bevo Steershit" - Bonus Tip
"a shambles" - Double Value Bonus Tip
Sources - extensive interviews with foreign officials and experts in seven key countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America, along with interviews with administration officials, experts and diplomats in Washington
200. concerned - 9/2/2002 5:58:13 PM
Zambia refuses GM 'poison'
Interesting how sub-saharan African dictatorships are picking up on the extremist idea that genetically modified food is unfit to eat, regardless of the fact that people in the West do so, to the extent that they are allowing millions of their own citizens to starve to death.
Does the Left see anything wrong with that? I wonder, sometimes, if they prefer human death and misery.
201. concerned - 9/2/2002 6:00:55 PM
This, of course, begs the question of how these Leftist dictatorships have been so incompetent as not to be able to feed their people in the first place, so we're talking about almost unimaginable incompetence and corruption, all in the name of socialism.
202. concerned - 9/2/2002 6:23:16 PM
Funny. He doesn't look a bit like Marie Antoinette.
203. PelleNilsson - 9/2/2002 8:02:12 PM
On what do you conclude that Mwanawasa is a socialist? Give us your analysis. Here, as a starting point, is a cite from www.socialistworker.co.uk
Even the EU's monitors expressed reservations about the election, which saw Levy Mwanawasa elected with less than 30 percent of the vote. However, because Mwanawasa is a friend of the multinationals, the EU shut up and defended the result. There were no sanctions when Mwanawasa declared that anyone who protested faced the death penalty.
204. jexster - 9/3/2002 7:11:39 PM
BERLIN (AP) - Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder rebuffed calls by Britain for Europe to help the United States against Iraq, saying Wednesday that Germany won't tone down its opposition to military action and won't "submit" to Washington.
In blunt comments, Schroeder said Tony Blair ( news - web sites) does not speak for all Europe, a day after the British prime minister declared Iraq "a real and unique threat" to world security and said the United States "should not have to face this issue alone."
The exchange highlighted international opposition to the prospect of a U.S. attack on Iraq — despite Blair's attempts to rally support for Washington.
"Friendship cannot mean that you do what the friend wants even if you have another opinion," he told a news conference in Berlin. "Anything else would not be friendship, but submission — and I would consider that wrong."
"With all respect for Tony Blair: Just like anyone else, he will not speak for Europe alone on this issue or on others," he said. "We have absolutely no reason to change our well-founded position. Under my leadership, Germany will not take part in an intervention in Iraq."
Schroeder also confirmed that Germany would withdraw six armored personnel carriers equipped to detect nuclear, chemical and biological warfare from Kuwait if the United States launches an attack on Iraq. The vehicles were deployed as part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism
205. TabouliJones - 9/5/2002 5:10:02 PM
PE,
A month or so ago you recommended The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia by David Hoffman. I read it. It is excellent. Thanks.
I just started Stiglitz' Globalization and its Discontents, also based on your recommendation here. So far, it has been quite educational.
I don't mean to pester, but if you have any other current books on economic history to recommend it would be much appreciated. Thanks.
206. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/7/2002 12:49:22 AM
The good doctor recommends The Elusive Quest for Growth
a must read for students of the "so-called" dismal science.
207. concerned - 9/8/2002 10:14:29 AM
Re. 203 -
The blind acceptance of such blatant tripe by Levy Mwanawasa about GM good could only have come from the strong continued influence of the wacky Left, no?
There is no question that Zambia's miserable economic condition has been brought about by statist policies, even though recent efforts toward privatization offer hopes of possibly reversing this trend.
208. marjoribanks - 9/8/2002 1:58:23 PM
Ahmed Rashid takes stock of the situation one year after 9/11.
209. PelleNilsson - 9/9/2002 4:38:26 PM
I knew that Bombay has become Mumbai, but not that Madras is now Chennai.
In India's name game, cities are the big losers
210. concerned - 9/10/2002 9:46:47 AM
The Carter Administration is more culpable than even I had thought regarding encouraging Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan (apart from their groundbreaking Iranian efforts with regard to this.)
excerpted:
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of The pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Weak and provocative. Jimmuh Cahtuh: world class wussy. He had incompetent foreign policy down to an art.
211. concerned - 9/10/2002 9:55:29 AM
Jimmuh Cahtuh: Truly, he is the Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism.
212. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:19:12 AM
Message # 210
It's ironic how Concerned has now picked up a well-circulated left-wing shibboleth in favour of some right-wing political purpose.
Brzezinski bragged in a Le Monde interview that he deliberately provoked the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan by beginning a programme of assistance to the mujahiddin in July 1979, five months before the Soviet invasion of the country.
This boasting has been picked up by countless left-wing websites, and it was once aired in this very thread, about two years ago.
Unfortunately for these left-wingers, plus Concerned, Brzezinski's boasting is just that, boasting. Nothing the USA did provoked the Soviets. We know this now from the Soviet archives.
213. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:21:40 AM
The most interesting piece of document from these archives is the report submitted to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and written by none other than Yuri Andropov, Andrei Gromyko and two other members of the Politburo.
Now, Concerned will have no knowledge of any of the events referenced therein, but suffice it to say, the report justifies the Soviet invasion by arguing, in essence, the Soviet leadership found the Khalq faction of the Afghan communists, then in power in Kabul, to be much too independent and unpredictable. Thus, the Soviets did a "regime change": the Parcham faction of the Afghan communists, totally compliant toward Moscow, was put in power.
Not once is the Afghan resistance mentioned anywhere in the document. That's understandable because the Afghan resistance was tiny before the Soviet invasion and did not grow into a serious force until after the invasion. In other words, the Soviets weren't provoked into invasion by anything the USA did.
Message # 211: "Jimmuh Cahtuh: Truly, he is the Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism."
Sorry, but Reagan is. The assistance to the Afghan resistance was minimal before and even after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It really hit the sky under Reagan, and it was under Reagan that the USA deliberately funnelled funds, via Pakistan, to the most radical Islamist mujahiddin groups, instead of the nationalist and royalist factions which were not Islamists at all. And it was the Reagan administration who looked the other way as their chums the Saudis recruited and financed the real fanatics from the Arab countries to fight in Afghanistan.
214. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:24:02 AM
Addendum:
"....the Soviets weren't provoked into invasion by anything the USA did....."
with respect to supporting the Afghan resistance.
215. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:26:01 AM
errata:
Not once is the US support to the Afghan resistance mentioned anywhere in the document.
216. concerned - 9/10/2002 10:35:27 AM
PE ignores the role the Carter administration played during the end of the Shah's rule, which is the primary reason I term Carter 'The Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism'.
...instead of the nationalist and royalist factions which were not Islamists at all.
They also could not put up an effective resistance to the Soviet occupation. So, what would PE's preferred solution have been in Reagan's place, having inherited the mess from the previous administration which he has just claimed has been nearly completely ineffective in accomplishing anything but immuring the US into a state of opposition to the Soviets? Tucked his tail between his legs and run?
217. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:38:43 AM
Message # 167 (Stostosto)
I will say one more thing, because I think I should in the spirit of honesty: I think it's actually a positive development that we have fewer foreigners coming in. I don't say this lightly. But I have become wary of some of the Muslim currents in our immigrant population, and also some of the general attitude towards this society among their youth......
218. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:51:10 AM
Message # 216
"PE ignores the role the Carter administration played during the end of the Shah's rule, which is the primary reason I term Carter 'The Godfather of Islamic Fundamentalism'.
You made this claim several months ago in another thread (Islamism? Israel-Palestine?) and I refuted it there comprehensively. The gist of my refutation was: the fundamentalists were able to seize power only after the Iranian armed forces sided with them. The Iranian army, created by the Shah and trained by the USA, was not a bunch of Islamists. But they found the fundamentalists much less frightening than instability. Instability in Iran had led to two things: revolt by ethnic Kurds, Azeris and Turkomen; and a military threat from Iraq.
[the nationalist and royalist factions which were not Islamists at all] also could not put up an effective resistance to the Soviet occupation.
Don't argue with me over Afghanistan, you know nothing.
The reality is the exact opposite of what you said. The mujahiddin faction that received the lion's share of US financial assistance, the radical-fundamentalist Hisb-i-Islami, was also the one with the SMALLEST power base inside Afghanistan. This faction was literally nothing but the money it received from the outside. It didn't do very much fighting until AFTER the Soviets withdrew in 1989 and the pro-Soviet Kabul government collapsed in 1992. Throughout most of the 1978-92 war, Hisb-i-Islami basically stockpiled weapons, assassinated moderate leaders of the resistance, played politics in Pakistan, and waited for the right moment to spring into real action. And that was in 1992, when Hisb-i-Islami turned on all the other factions and launched the Afghan civil war.
219. concerned - 9/10/2002 10:53:41 AM
PE appears to accuse Brzezinski of outright lying when Zbigniew repeatedly claims that the Carter administration was specifically funding the mujahideen (Islamic fundamentalists), without mentioning any of the other groups that PE brings up.
Now, I don't have much trouble believing Zbigniew was a fool, but strongly doubt he is retailing such a blatant falsehood as PE tries to make it seem.
220. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 10:54:48 AM
I am not absolving the Carter administration of some responsibility for the Afghanistan problem. But Carter must be reproached in the context of the entire episode of western appeasement of the Soviet Union known as "détente" and "Ostpolitik". Nixon, Ford, Carter and Western European fellators of the USSR all deserve blame for creating an atmosphere in the USSR could be so audacious.
221. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:00:49 AM
Message # 219: "PE appears to accuse Brzezinski of outright lying when Zbigniew repeatedly claims that the Carter administration was specifically funding the mujahideen (Islamic fundamentalists)...."
Don't be such a cunt.
I did not say and do not say Brzezinski was lying. I believe him when he says the public version of when the USA began funding the mujahiddin is false and that the USA actually began funding the mujahiddin five months before the Soviet invasion. Again, I believe him. I repeat again: I believe him. Do you want another repetition? I believe him.
What I dismiss is his own assessment of what this early funding accomplished. He says it provoked a Soviet invasion. He is just being a self-congratulatory blow-hard braggart. (Brzezinski brought down the Soviet Union!)
Well, we know that this early funding didn't provoke the Soviets, because an internal report within the Soviet leadership from December 1979 reveals to us that the Soviets were motivated to invade by the erratic and independent behaviour of their own client regime in Afghanistan.
222. concerned - 9/10/2002 11:14:47 AM
Well, we know that this early funding didn't provoke the Soviets, because an internal report within the Soviet leadership from December 1979 reveals to us that the Soviets were motivated to invade by the erratic and independent behaviour of their own client regime in Afghanistan.
Well, thanks for the link. I'm not inclined to doubt the substance of this report, given its provenance.
However, putting Nixon on a plane with Carter wrt the Soviet bloc is risible when one considers the instability of purpose as well as the sheer fecklessness to which Carter's foreign 'policy' in general was prone.
223. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:16:54 AM
Continuing with Message # 217. Now, I've always been sympathetic to anti-immigrant rhetoric; after all, most immigrants are generally the scum of the societies they come from, not their best and brightest. (There are significant exceptions to this.) But the immigrants that Western Europe gets from the Middle East and North Africa are really the most backward imaginable, and in many European countries they make a disproportionate contribution to the criminality statistics.
However, in the case of Denmark, there is some ambiguity.
In Message # 179, Concerned quoted from an article on Muslim immigrants in Denmark by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaaard. In Message # 182, Pelle expresses scepticism at some of their claims, and Concerned asked in Message # 183, "Are you doubting the statistics he mentions?"
Well, a Dane argues that in the case of the criminal statistics, Pipes and Hedegaaard have outright fabricated their claims.
Engaging in crime: Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes. [Pipes & Hedegaaard]224. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:17:11 AM
Two statements here: (1) Muslims are majority amongst convicted rapists, and (2) Muslims are more criminal in general. Now, what does the first statement really mean? Would it be that of all (still living?) persons convicted of rape in Denmark, Muslims are a majority? Or does it mean that in a given year, they are a majority? Let us rule out possibility one - that kind of statistic would be hard to get at, if not impossible. So possibility two it is. The Danish police fortunately publish crime statistics on their public Web site. They even had special reports made about crime and ethnicity. Let us look at the years 1998 and 2000 - the most recent ones. Problem number on is that the statistics do not really group people by religion, but rather by country of origin. Although we can guess about a person’s religion from this material, we cannot know for sure. In 1998, 17 rapists with an immigrant background were convicted; 73 Danes were. In 2000, the numbers were 25 and 70. I can only say one thing about this point: Pipes and Hedegaard are blatantly and manifestly lying and fabricating their facts. The numbers contradict them, and the statistics do not single out Muslims. This particular paragraph in their article is a case of pure racist bigotry.
Statement 2: Muslims are more criminal than Danes. Well, same old: the available statistics do not record religious affiliation. Indeed, most of these statistics lump immigrants into two broad groups: coming from developed or less-developed countries. So, the Muslim angle is a fantasy.225. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:17:20 AM
Anyways, yes, immigrants seem to be more criminal than Danes. But, as the report on the police Web site says: this is probably due to immigrants as a whole being younger, poorer and less educated than Danes. Young, poor and uneducated Danes are actually quite criminal - at least more so than rich, old professors. Duh. If you attempt to rinse the statistics of these correlations, it turns out that immigrants might be slightly more criminal than Danes (or, even, for some reason they tend to be caught and convicted more often...) It is actually on the edge of not being statistically significant. So says the police and the statisticians.
226. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:20:29 AM
Message # 222
"However, putting Nixon on a plane with Carter wrt the Soviet bloc is risible when one considers the instability of purpose as well as the sheer fecklessness to which Carter's foreign 'policy' in general was prone."
Well, was Nixon the pioneer of détente or not? Was the Carter administration continuing the policy started by Nixon or not?
At least Carter embargoed agricultural exports to the Soviet Union after the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan reinstated them.
227. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:30:22 AM
Message # 175: "I have seen little criticism of Japanese immigration policies here, a policy which pretty much denies anybody not of Japanese extraction full citizenship status, yet nobody appears to felt that there is anything unusual about this..."
Firstly, I must say that this is yet another instance in which Concerned learns something everybody already knows and shows it off as though it's a spectacular new discovery of his.
Seconly, "nobody appears to feel that there is anything unusual about this" because it's not unusual. The only countries in the world with a truly open, non-racial/ethnic immigration and naturalisation policies are the English-speaking countries, France, the Netherlands, and possibly the Scandinavian countries, I don't know.
Thirdly, you are confusing naturalisation and immigration policies. Japan does not naturalise as Japanese citizens those who are not ethnic Japanese (just as Israel does not naturalise non-Jews as Israeli citizens), but Japan does take in foreign guestworkers. Today, the streets of Tokyo are full of Indians, Pakistanis, Lebanese, Turks, Indonesians, Senegalese, Moroccans, and even Israelis. Most of these are on temporary work visas, and none of them has the right to say permanently, let alone any right to naturalise.
228. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 11:40:35 AM
A little while ago I entertained the possibility that Georg Haider (the Austrian far-right politician) may have some kind of Muslim ancestry, possibly Bosnian, because of his very Muslim-sounding surname.
Someone sent me by emailthis link about "famous Arab-Americans" and I was shocked:
Ralph Nader, John Sununu and Donna Shalala -- okay, I know they are of Arab descent, but this website seems to claim half of Yankistan is of Arab descent.
Helen Thomas, George Mitchell, Paul Anka, Frank Zappa, Diane Riehm, Christa McAuliffe, Danny Thomas, Jamie Farr, Kristy McNichol, Selma Hayek, Casey Kasem and F. Murray Abraham are Arab-Americans???
George Mitchell?
if this is correct, then I'm sure the background of most of the above is Lebanese Maronite.
(Hayek is a common Lebanese and Turkish name, which causes me to wonder about the Austrian free-market demigod Friedrich von Hayek....)
Of course, Latin America is full of Arabs. The three richest Mexicans are Lebanese. Likewise, Carlos Menem, the president of Argentina. Ecuador has had an Arab for president; not only that, in the 1996 presidential elections, ALL THREE presidential candidates were second-generation Arab immigrants. I think two other Latin American countries currently have Arabs as presidents.
229. marjoribanks - 9/10/2002 2:26:01 PM
Who are those super-rich Mexican Arabs? I'd have thought that narcobillionaires would make up the list of the wealthiest in that country.
The list of Arab-Americans is totally unremarkable. More surprising is the implicit claim that Pseudoerasmus has heard of all of those people. But most of those people must indeed be Maronites from Lebanon. Until recently (perhaps, even now) the majority of Arabs in the US were not Muslims, and the proportion is even more skewed to Christians across Latin America.
In the Caribbean, where the Arab-descended form a kind of trading-class elite, all Arabs are called 'Syrian' even though most aren't from Syria but from Lebanon. There must have been an influx of Syrians into the region and L.America at some point (I think Menem is Syrian-descended), I wonder what prompted the wave of migration. The Lebanese you can understand, they've been traders forever and tracked the Brits wherever they went in Empire.
230. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 2:58:58 PM
Well, the initial migration of Maronites was prompted, surely, by their war with the Druze.
Menem was certainly a Muslim though; he had to convert to Catholicism in order to be able to stand for the presidency of Argentina.
"Who are those super-rich Mexican Arabs?"
The ones that I can think of right now are Carlos Slim (aka Selim), owner of Telmex; and Alfredo Harp Helu, the owner of Banamex.
231. thoughtful - 9/10/2002 3:05:25 PM
Danny Thomas and Jamie Farr are Lebanese.
It's Salma Hayek, not Selma.
232. Edmund Dantes - 9/10/2002 3:06:30 PM
I'd heard of all of them but "Diane Riehm," which turns out to be a misspelling (hadn't heard of her under Diane Rehm, either though).
As far as the strength of Carter's reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, don't forget that he also boycotted the Olympics.
233. pseudoerasmus - 9/10/2002 3:08:02 PM
errata: Jörg not Georg, Haider.
234. joezan - 9/10/2002 3:28:22 PM
Of course Frank Zappa was of Arab descent, half-Sicilian that he was.
In fact, here's his twin brother, Sheik Yerbouti Zappa:
235. Wombat - 9/10/2002 4:22:55 PM
If you look at the credits to the film "Blackboard Jungle," you will note that the skinny kid who saves Glenn Ford by hitting one of the thugs with the flagpole (US flag attached) is listed as Jamil Farra (Jamie Farr).
236. concerned - 9/11/2002 5:55:25 AM
... the report justifies the Soviet invasion by arguing, in essence, the Soviet leadership found the Khalq faction of the Afghan communists, then in power in Kabul, to be much too independent and unpredictable. Thus, the Soviets did a "regime change": the Parcham faction of the Afghan communists, totally compliant toward Moscow, was put in power.
Possibly the Khalq faction might have felt encouraged to challenge Moscow's hegemony in the first place because of the Carter Administration's policy decision to subvert Soviet influence. Thus, without any necessity for official Soviet acknowledgment of US intervention as a justification to do so, the Godfather's policy quite possibly indeed did play a role in precipitating the Soviet invasion.
237. alistairconnor - 9/11/2002 9:53:16 AM
Hey Pelle, since I'm nominally co-host, how about we change the subtitle of this thread?
I think we should leave the "vengeance" angle on international affairs to the Middle East and Iraq threads.
238. PelleNilsson - 9/11/2002 10:02:47 AM
Right. I guess you have an idea for a new one. Just put it up. I'm logging off in a few minutes.
239. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 4:06:07 PM
Carlos Slim is Arab, eh? Interesting, I didn't know that.
--
That catchphrase - 'global issues with a vengeance' has indeed run its course. I came up with it in the beta-testing phase of this site, when this thread was called 'International Sanctum' and it stuck all this time. I like AC's replacement.
240. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 4:12:08 PM
Pseuder made some interesting comments about immigrants that should be looked at. But first this:
The only countries in the world with a truly open, non-racial/ethnic immigration and naturalisation policies are the English-speaking countries, France, the Netherlands, and possibly the Scandinavian countries, I don't know.
Top of the list, ahead of the US, has to be Canada, which admits all (under some guidelines) and awards naturalization on a first-come, first-served, basis unlike the US. This country has quotas based on national origin for immigrants.
Other countries not mentioned in the list - Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Italy.
And then you have a slew of Latin American countries, notably Brazil, Paraguay and Chile - all fit the criteria outlined by Pseuder, except if you want to quibble about the words "truly open". You could also add most of the Caribbean countries, especially the Bahamas and Bermuda to the list. And what about Switzerland?
241. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 4:21:50 PM
Educated Turks or Moroccans (who remain at home, for the most part) often express shock that Europeans tolerate the presence of such large numbers of semi-literate rural migrants from their countries.
I've always been sympathetic to anti-immigrant rhetoric; after all, most immigrants are generally the scum of the societies they come from, not their best and brightest.
I'm never, by contrast, sympathetic to anti-immigrant rhetoric, especially when this is voiced by disaffected elites from the country of origin. I mean, why listen to an Ankaran toff about the relative quality of migrants from his country to Germany or Canada? In the first place, he comes from a stratified society and has presumably benefitted from the order that rewards him while driving others to look for opportunity elsewhere. In addition, the opinions of those elites in the home country have been proven to be wrong time and again through the history of migrant nations. I have no doubt the Italian patricians of the last century sniffed at the quality of their rural countrymen when they headed to the US - who gives a shit? D'you think Giuliani takes that attitude seriously today?
I'm particularly interested in the Indian migrant experience in the US and UK. Yes, Pseuder will cavil about the quality of these migrants, but I can assure him that I grew up in an environment where most of the migrants (particularly those to the UK) were definitely looked at as people who couldn't hack it in India's competetitive environment (or in the case of indentured laborers to the Caribbean, Fiji and Mauritius as literally dregs). But, again, who was wrong and who was right about these fellows, whether the laborers in Trinidad who made the island a little regional economic powerhouse, or the Punjabi factory workers in the UK who have leaped to the forefront of the that country's economic and educational stats in the course of two generations?
242. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 4:37:57 PM
Here's the list of Mexicans mentioned in Forbes reckoning of the wealthiest people in the world, with global ranking:
17 Slim Helu, Carlos
101 Arango, Jeronimo
144 Zambrano, Lorenzo & family
180 Garza Laguera, Eugenio & family
234 Hernandez, Roberto
277 Harp Helu, Alfredo
277 Salinas Pliego, Ricardo & family
293 Aramburuzabala, Maria Asuncion & family
293 Bailleres, Alberto
351 Peralta, Carlos & family
445 Azcarraga Jean, Emilio
445 Saba Raffoul, Isaac & family
In searching for this data, I found that the richest family in New Mexico happens to be the Maloofs. That's a Maronite name.
243. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 4:46:05 PM
The overall list of billionaires is here.
There are some interesting things in the top 50. No Sultan of Brunei? No Emirs from Dubai or Abu Dhabi? There must be some kind of error there.
In the top 50, there are only a few Muslims (the list is dominated by tech billionaires, the Walton family, and some older merchant families from Europe and the US). There is a Saudi prince, then there is Slim, then another Saudi, and then .... Azim Premji, India's richest man and another tech-fellow.
244. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 4:58:21 PM
Oh, I see that I slightly misread - Pseuder included Canada and the rest when he said 'English-speaking countries'.
But what about Portugal and Italy, anyway?
245. marjoribanks - 9/11/2002 5:02:22 PM
Apropos of not much other than my own reference to Punjabis in the UK, I must urge you all to check out the small but enjoyable movie - Bend it like Beckham, about a Sikh girl from Southall's Indian ghetto who wants to play football like her hero David Beckham. I readily admit I'm a sap when it comes to such movies, and I had a lump in my throat for bits of it, but it's funny stuff nonetheless. The actress playing Jesminder (the protagonist) is good, and so is Anupam Kher (a veteran of Indian movies) as her slightly confused father.
246. robertjayb - 9/11/2002 11:44:45 PM
The end of irony---U.S. Slams Putin for Threatening Georgia
Thu Sep 12, 5:07 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Thursday it would not support Russian President Vladimir Putin ( news - web sites) if he carried out his threat to attack Chechen rebel bases in Georgia and slammed him for suggesting he might.
"The United States strongly supports Georgia's territorial integrity and would oppose any unilateral military action by Russia inside Georgia," a State Department spokesman told Reuters.
"We take strong exception to statements yesterday by President Putin threatening unilateral action against Chechen targets on Georgian territory if Georgia does not capture and hand over Chechen fighters,"
247. concerned - 9/12/2002 6:28:36 PM
Yourapeons had best not get too hoity-toity about the US - when the Muslims take over there, the remnant of native Yourapeons who do not want to 'submit' to forced Islamic conversions will need a place to emigrate to, and they won't be helping their chances of coming to the US much if they don't let up on their policy of antagonizing Americans:)
Of course, I figure that the huge majority of Leftist Yourapeons will be more than happy to embrace Islamic Fundamentalism when push comes to shove. Theirs will be the arses wiggling most vigorously in the direction away from Mecca five times a day in a few decades.
248. alistairconnor - 9/12/2002 11:08:11 PM
Well gee, even Jean-Marie Le Pen has dropped his rhetoric about the Muslims taking over Europe.
So I guess you're to the right of him too, Con.
249. PincherMartin - 9/14/2002 8:41:28 AM
Marjori Banks writes:
Top of the list, ahead of the US, has to be Canada, which admits all (under some guidelines) and awards naturalization on a first-come, first-served, basis unlike the US. This country has quotas based on national origin for immigrants.Canada's immigration policy might be more open -- or fair -- in theory, but in practice the U.S. naturalizes and allows to immigrate a greater percentage of non-whites than does our neighbor to the north. U.S. immigrants are more diverse. U.S. imigrants are also more likely to come from poor countries. In the fifteen years from 1981 to 1996, not a single European or other mainly white country makes the top ten in the number of immigrants it sends to the U.S. Here is a list illustrating the point:
250. PincherMartin - 9/14/2002 8:42:24 AM
What's more, a disproportionate percentage of Canada's immigrants are from East Asia especially Hong Kong (more than 10 percent of Canada's total immigration in the first half of the 1990s came from that wealthy city-state alone; what was that joke about Canadian immigration? That all you had to be was a millionaire Hong Kong citizen to get Canadian citizenship?). India and Sri Lanka also make Canada's top ten list, but unlike the U.S., which has five countries out of the top ten from its own region, not a single country from Latin America or the Caribbean is represented in Canada's list -- very odd for what is, after all, an American country.
More up-to-date stats might show some changes, but I'm sure that the trend has been fairly consistent for both countries. A larger proportion of Canada's population is foreign-born than in the U.S., but more of Canada's immigrants are from European or mainly white countries than the U.S., and more of its non-white immigrants are less diverse in their origins than the U.S.
What does all this mean? Not shit really. But it kind of spoils Bank's presumption of more fairness existing in the Canadian immigration system.
251. TabouliJones - 9/15/2002 3:31:16 PM
More recent stats re: Canadian immigration statistics can be found here on page 8 by the printed page number (page 12 of the PDF document). The trends pointed out by Pincher still hold for 1999, 2000 and 2001.
252. alistairconnor - 9/15/2002 4:07:19 PM
Well, the US has a land border with Mexico, and colonial ties to the following two countries.
There is a question of cultural affinity too : the US is a Latin American country, Canada isn't.
Then comes the fact that it's cold up there.
253. alistairconnor - 9/15/2002 4:13:36 PM
Some more ill-informed speculation :
* Canada runs a points system for immigration, as probably most countries do : depending on your age, educational qualifications, family status, money in the bank etc you get points, and you qualify if you get a certain score. This is effectively different from a country-by-country quota system -- and probably leads to more white people qualifying.
* I suspect that the US quota-by-country system means that, for example, it might be easier for a Dominican to qualify for immigration than a Pole with equal qualifications.
254. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 12:09:06 AM
Message # 80: Hanson's Culture and Carnage is well written and has good descriptions of famous wars/battles, but I think it is one of the most politicised history books I've ever read, ranking up there with explicitly Marxist renditions of history. Everything in the book seems to have so many blatantly contemporary-political echoes that I had a hard time trusting anything Hanson was saying, and I always felt something was being distorted to suit contemporary political ends. The first half of the book is unabashedly anachronistic, but I suppose some people are better able than me to stomach references to "open markets" and "capitalism" in the context of discussing ancient history.
Hanson alludes ever so briefly to the debate among ancient historians between "modernists" and "primitivists", but he basically sides with the modernists without explanation -- presumably because his bias accords with the modernists'. Well, the primitivists dominate the debate on the ancient Greek economy today; and the major exponent of the minority tendency (modernism) is an economist named Morris Silver who has a book arguing that the economic structure of ancient Mesopotamia was fundamentally capitalist.
All the same, I don't think one can talk about capitalism in Europe until the High Middle Ages. It indubitably existed by the time of Lepanto, and Hanson's chapter on Lepanto contained the germ of a decent essay on the relationship between capitalism and war. But on that subject William McNeill and Paul Kennedy are much better.
255. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 12:10:29 AM
( I liked two chapters in Hanson's book: the one on Lepanto and the other on the Punic war. Those are the only ones where I thought Hanson successfully defended his thesis.)
256. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 12:12:25 AM
Hanson also clings to an outdated, Will-and-Ariel-Durant-type view that western liberal traditions were inherited from ancient Greece. But these days the liberal and democratic traditions of the modern West are regarded, much less as results of classical influence, than as an accumulation of indigenous responses to indigenous political developments in Northwestern Europe. (In other words: the Magna Carta is not just incomparably more important than anything written by the Greeks, but the Magna Carta also does not owe much to the Greeks.) Hanson's view of science & technology is a bit outdated too, since there was no such thing as "disinterested secular research" until the 19th century nor did science per se contribute very much to technology per se until the 20th century.
By the way, Hanson attacks Jared Diamond in his introduction to the book. Which I found mystifying because I really don't think there is a contradiction between what Hanson says and what Diamond says. Diamond simply asks more fundamental questions than Hanson. If possessing a certain kind of culture gave the West certain advantages over the non-West, then the natural question is how and why did such a culture emerge in the West but not in non-West? Hanson appears to be content with not asking that question, because for him culture is something mysterious -- and also because he's a right-wing culturalist and right-wing culturalists simply hate Diamond-style deterministic answers. But it's a relevant question. (The premier right-wing culturalist Lawrence Harrison inadvertently makes a Diamondian-type argument in one of his books, where he compares Costa Rica and Nicaragua.)
257. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 12:14:45 AM
By the way, Bernard Lewis argues in his book The Muslim Discovery of Europe that the western account of the battles of Tour and Poitiers is hyperexaggerated legend. Instead of some epic, decisive battle which saved western civilisation, the Franks probably routed what amounted to a scouting party or a band of raiders. Now, Hanson's chapter on Poitiers is already full of howlers and ridiculous statements, but anyone who has read Lewis's comments on Poitiers and Tour must conclude that Hanson's whole chapter has no business of existing.
258. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 1:09:29 AM
Message # 53: Hanson's columns in the National Review are extremely well written and entertaining. Hanson is an irresistibly facile and compellingly confident polemicist. But almost all of his columns read like spontaneous, runaway-auto-pilot riffs based on some fatally flawed premise, leavened with pugilistic triumphalism, defensive self-congratulatory nationalism and his by-now formulaic hobbyhorse lectures about western culture.
Typical is the piece cited by Pincher and dismissed by Sto. The problem with Hanson's article has not to do with any of the details of the article -- most of which are accurate -- but in the overall premise. Hanson finds hypocrisy in those who criticise the USA but like to consume its culture and even live & work the USA. But there is no hypocrisy at all. One can criticise, and even despise, the policies of the US government, and still want to consume the products of its technology and even work there. I must admit I found Hanson's remarks about Musharraf and his son (who works in Boston) particularly puzzling. What is so surprising about it? What is so contradictory and inconsistent about it?
259. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 1:09:42 AM
Another is Hanson's piece entitled "Why Support Israel", less a case for supporting Israel than an explanation of why the USA supports it so adamantly. He argues that Americans support Israel because they find in Israel the same liberal & democratic values they hold so dear. It's a morally sentimental, idealistic argument, but it is fatally flawed because it doesn't explain why the equally liberal & democratic Europe isn't bewitched by the same values. Hanson apparently foresaw this snag and dismisses the European attitude toward Israel as amoral, motivated by lucre or timidity or a simple desire to stay out of trouble. He also implies that Europeans suffer from antisemitism.
But then why were the Europeans (viz. the French, the British and the West Germans) -- not the Americans -- the principal benefactor of Israel in the 1948-67 period? Are they greedier, more timid or more antisemitic today than during those years?
All the same, Hanson is kept from being just another right-wing columnist blowhard because his polemical and prose styles are so entertaining. And I think Hanson should be introduced to his Indian equivalent and counterpart, the equally amusing and well written columnist Rajeev Srinivasan. He's a Hindu nationalist Keralite software exec who is usually found railing against Muslims, Christians, the West and China and extolling the greatness of Hindu culture & civilisation.
I find the similarities in tone, style and thought between Hanson and Srinivasan eerie.
260. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 3:00:00 AM
Message # 249: "Canada's immigration policy might be more open -- or fair -- in theory, but in practice the U.S. naturalizes and allows to immigrate a greater percentage of non-whites than does our neighbor to the north."
I think it's simplest to look at the cumulative proportion of non-white residents in the population -- excluding aboriginals in both countries and blacks in the USA. They're excluded because their presence is hardly a testament to openness to voluntary migrants.
Canada's "visible minority" population (all non-whites excluding aboriginals) was 11,2% of the total population in 1996. In the USA, the population of non-white groups, excluding blacks and aboriginals, with all Hispanics counted as non-white (even though that biases the result in favour of the USA), was 17,5% of the total population in 1999.
Surely this 6% difference might easily be explained by a combination of the USA's proximity to Latin America and the Carribean, not to mention the vast border shared between the USA and Mexico, and the fact that the climate in the USA is more amenable to immigrants from the southern portions of the western hemisphere than the Canadian climate.
So I think at the very least one could say that when it comes to non-white immigrants, Canada has been at least as open to them as the USA has been.
261. jexster - 9/16/2002 4:51:59 AM
"International Security:Changing Targets", Freedman (1998),Foreign Poliy, Spring, 1998
This ring a bell?
A principled security policy can soon appear problematic. If pushed too far, it can be seen as imprudent and undermining of hard interest: if not pushed far enough, then the charge is likely to be one of hypocrisy and double standards. It can also encourage practitioners to emphasize the unprincipled character of opponents. Selling the "threat" may involve demonizing local political forces and the ideologies they represent. This tactic may produce rationales that work well as morality plays but are less than helpful in preparing interventionist forces for complex and multifaceted situations. An example of this came with the fixation on the faction led by militia commander Mohammed Aidid during the U.S. intervention in Somalia from 1992 to 1994, or the current difficulty faced in finding ways to respond to the stirrings of change in Iran. American policymakers routinely refer to rogue states, a group of authoritarian, ideologically hostile nations devoted to disrupting the international system. The diverse membership of this aberrant category - Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria - argues against a strategy that treats these nations as a monolithic, like-minded threat deserving of a standard response....
262. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:35:53 PM
PE calls Carnage and Culture well written and descriptive in its depiction of famous battles, but says the book is rabidly political, in the same manner as some Marxist texts. He then points out numerous faults, most of which consist of what PE considers Hanson's anachronistic view of markets, science and technology, and the Western tradition.
Some of what PE says has merit, but he misses several key points and exaggerates Hanson's faults. First, as I pointed out to Sto, Carnage and Culture is not a scholarly work; it is a work for the masses. There are basically no footnotes. There is an extensive, but very loosely organized bibliography. And Hanson writes in his preface:
This is not a book, then, written for academic specialists. Instead, I have tried to offer a synthesis of Western society at war for the general reader across some 2,500 years of history that concentrates on general trends ... I have used formal scholarly citations in parentheses in the text only for the longer direct quotations -- although detailed information concerning factual material is derived from primary sources and secondary books and articles discussed at the conclusion of the book.Because of this emphasis on the general reader (and for another reason I give below), many of Hanson's arguments of what constitute the elements of Western warfare break down under close scrutiny. Here are the battles Hanson looks at and the lesson he says the reader should take from them about Western warfare:
263. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:37:53 PM
1) Salamis (Freedom)
2) Gaugamela (Decisive Battle)
3) Cannae (Citizen Soldiers)
4) Poitiers (Landed Infantry)
5) Tenochtitlan (Technology and the Wages of Reason)
6) Lepanto (The Market -- or Capitalism Kills)
7) Rorke's Drift (Discipline -- or Warriors are not always Soldiers)
8) Midway (Individualism)
9) Tet (Dissent and Self-Critique)
When Hanson focuses on each battle, he tries to draw out the main lesson to support his point. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. From the viewpoint of a social scientist, however, the whole enterprise is obviously flawed. Carnage and Culture is really nothing more than a collection of case studies to demonstrate why the West is so effective at killing, but since Hanson doesn't closely look at other cultures' armies and manner of warfare, and because his cases are so selective, it's hard to take the book's main arguments seriously. When Hanson speaks of the Classical west or of, say, the particular strengths of Greek infantry versus the Persians, I feel confident he is accurate or at least offering an opinion he can back up. I feel less so when is making broad comparisons with other non-Western cultures and militaries.
But the value of Carnage and Culture goes beyond a flawed case study. The book is filled with informative details. Numerous books of quality are like this. I completely disagree with the main points of The Clash of Civilizations, and I think Huntington utterly fails to prove his thesis, but I still enjoyed reading it for the many details and what they suggest along other lines of reasoning. There are so many books like this, I feel embarrassed to point out that the value of a book does not solely or even mainly reside in whether its thesis is proved by the author.
continued ...
264. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:39:38 PM
Here is an example of what I mean from the chapter in Carnage and Culture on Poitiers:
Key to continuing Western ability to craft good weapons, along with fluid and innovative tactical doctrine, was the embrace of published military research, which married theory with field experience to offer pragmatic advice to commanders in the field. The late Roman handbooks of Frontinus and to a greater extant Vegetius were copied even throughout the Dark Ages and became a bible of sorts to many western European warlords. Rabanus Maurus, the ninth-century archbishop of Mainz, published an annotated De re militari specifically to improve Frankish warfare. For the next four hundred years, adaptations and translations of Vegetius appeared throughout Europe by Alfonso X (1252-84), Bono Gimaboni (1250), and Jean de Meung (1284).Continued ...
European siegecraft itself was unmatched, precisely because it followed in the past tradition of classical poliorketetika (the arts of “polis enclosing”). Manuals such as the Mappae Clavicula instructed besiegers in the use of engines and incendiary devices. The emperors Maurice (Ars militaris) and Leo VI (Tactica) outlined Byzantine infantry and naval tactics in preparing manuals for their generals and admirals to keep the Mediterranean Sea and its harbors free from Arab fleets. In contrast, Islamic writing on war was rarely abstract or theoretical – or even practical – but more holistic and philosophical, and largely concerned itself with the proper rules and conduct of the jihad.
265. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:41:32 PM
Among the early Franks this need to write about war and to publish manuals about its practice were in direct emulation of Roman and Greek thinkers. Military practice did not operate in a vacuum, but was closely connected to the presence of an educated elite familiar with classical ideas of military organizations and weaponry. Under the Carolingians, a systematic approach was undertaken to the preservation of classical manuscripts, along with efforts to assure education in the Greco-Roman tradition.The interesting details are not just fascinating in and of themselves, but open up all sorts of possibilities. PE pooh-poohs the idea of a continuous liberal tradition inherited from Greece and Rome, and says Hanson buys into this fallacy (PE mentions the Magna Carta). But Hanson is not so much concerned with a general Western tradition as he is with a continuous Western military tradition, and as this section I just quoted shows, it is fallacious to think they are necessarily one and the same. Does Hanson prove this point that the military tradition developed separately from other western traditions? No, not to my satisfaction, but it certainly can and should be said that he is operating on a different plane than Will and Ariel Durant.
266. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:43:05 PM
PE says that he found the chapters on Lepanto and Cannae the best, but interestingly enough also says that the first half of the book is anachronistic. I found the first half of the book the best and thought the second half, uninteresting. Hanson is more at home talking about Alexander's armies than he is on Midway, and it shows.
PE also thinks Hanson is overtly political – a right-winger -- but this is probably because he approaches the book only after having read Hanson’s articles. In fact, Hanson is surprisingly critical about many elements found in modern right-wingers, particularly Christianity. If Hanson has ever said a nice thing about Christians, I’ve yet to read it. In Carnage and Culture, Hanson, like Gibbon, seems to think that Christianity contributed to the weakening of the West’s military prowess after the fall of the Roman Empire. No, Hanson is not so much politically ideological as he is an avid partisan pushing his idea of Western culture and the United States as the greatest modern-day avatar of it.
continued ...
267. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:46:00 PM
PE mentions Hanson’s chapter on Poitiers and unfavorably compares it to Bernard Lewis’ comments at the beginning of The Muslim Discovery of Europe. But this misses the point. Hanson is well aware of the current scholarly opinion on the battle, as he writes at the end of the chapter:
Recent scholars have suggested either that Poitiers – so poorly recorded in contemporary sources – was a mere raid and thus a “construct” of Western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory would have been preferable to continued Frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful Western defense of Europe. Flush from victory at Poitiers, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates.It’s also important to remember that Hanson’s main point in looking at Poitiers is to illustrate the importance of landed infantry in use against cavalry, seeing this as a Western tactic derived from the Greeks. The importance of the battle, then, is to see if massed infantry can stand in battle against horsemen, and to make an argument that this use of landed infantry is a distinctly Western manner of warfare. It is not to argue that all English today would be circumcised and eschew pork if Martel had failed. Hanson reiterates this point in the bibliography at the back of the book:
268. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:46:44 PM
The absence of good firsthand accounts of the battle have led to widely contrasting appraisals of its conduct and importance. It is common to read in major surveys of the age – before 1950 almost exclusively in German and French – that Poitiers marked the rise of feudalism, the dominance of heavy knights in stirrups, and the salvation of Western civilization, even as more sober accounts deny that horsemen played much role, if any role, at Poitiers, that feudalism as it later emerged was years in the future, and that Abd Rahman’s invasion was merely one of a series of raids that gradually waned in the eighth century, as the Muslim bickering in Spain and Frankish consolidation in Europe conspired to weaken Islamic expansion from the Pyrenees. Most likely, Poitiers was an understandable victory of spirited infantrymen on the defensive, rather than the result of a monumental technological or military breakthrough, a reflection of increasing Arab weakness in extended operations to the north, rather than in itself the salvation of the Christian West.Here is Hanson: informative, knowledgeable in the source material, and somewhat contradictory in his presentation. I'm not sure why PE would think Lewis rather short remarks would have much relevance to Hanson's piece, let alone show it shouldn't even be in the book.
269. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 12:47:03 PM
PE’s complaint of Hanson’s use of marketplace and technology for the Classical period is accurate. Hanson uses these terms colloquially, and always loosely. But PE needs to explain how the Greeks -- who were far less wealthy and had far less resources than the Persians -- were nevertheless much better equipped than their opponents. If the peculiar Greek economy and its differences with the Persian one (including craftsmen in the agora) were not responsible for these differences, as Hanson describes them, then what is? The Greeks and Romans were far better equipped than their counterparts for not just particular battles, not just decades, but for centuries. How is this, as Sto's reviewer says, a paean to capitalism?
270. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 1:17:38 PM
Thanks to TJ for the updated stats on Canada.
Alistair & PE --
I'm not sure it's any colder in Vancouver than it is in New York; in fact, I believe it is less so. And yet New York is filled with Latins, not to mention the many blacks who, after being enslaved from tropical Africa, and taken to the less than balmy U.S. south, still managed to make their way north to such cold places as Boston, Detroit, New York, Chicago, in the hope the trip would better their lives. Why would a Latin be any more deterred by Canada's cold climate, given the country's extraordinary standard of living and its supposedly fairer immigration procedures? And an immigrant from Taiwan or Hong Kong is not likely to feel at home in Vancouver or Toronto's weather.
*****
The U.S. is now a Latin American country only by virtue of its immigration over the last thirty to forty years. Canada belongs to NAFTA, is on the North American continent, and has close ties to the U.S., all of which should facilitate growth in it immigration from Latin America. But, according to what I read, immigration to Canada is growing fastest from the regions of East Asia and the Middle East.
Again, I'm not making any argument here. I'm not saying Canada's immigration policies are less fair than the US's or that it should change them. Indeed, I think Canada's emphasis on Asian immigration is probably a boon for it, and something the U.S. should emulate. I'm simply breaking down Banks' point that there is some inherent fairness in Canada's system that doesn't exist in the U.S.
*****
I don't take seriously the idea of land borders and colonial ties in this age. What borders does Canada share with Hong Kong?
271. PincherMartin - 9/16/2002 1:22:11 PM
Before I get jumped by someone (probably PE) for saying NAFTA should facilitate more immigration to Canada from Latin America, I realize that the trade agreement has nothing to do with labor moving over the border.
Nevertheless, it should've led to greater trade between the two countries and, therefore, a need for more workers who understand Spanish and English (and French?) to fill the niche to ensure the smooth flow of goods and services.
272. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 4:02:50 PM
I was not going to say a single thing about NAFTA.
"I don't take seriously the idea of land borders...in this age..."
Why not? I don't see how one can dismiss the impact of the enormous land border the USA shares with Mexico. A large proportion of Latin Americans in the USA are either illegal or were once illegals. It's the land border that substantially explains their presence.
As for climate -- even if what you say about Vancouver is true, then you have precisely one small area of Canada which might be tolerable to Latin Americans. But if you're looking for mediterranean, tropical or subtropical climates, you're heading for the USA not Canada.
273. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 4:03:43 PM
I don't have Hanson's book here so forgive me for not being as specific as you have been.
Message # 263: "From the viewpoint of a social scientist, however, the whole enterprise is obviously flawed."
No I didn't think of it like that at all. Hanson's book is much more a social scientist's book than a historian's book. In fact no historian would write a book like Hanson's today.
"When Hanson speaks of the Classical west or of, say, the particular strengths of Greek infantry versus the Persians, I feel confident he is accurate or at least offering an opinion he can back up...I feel less so when is making broad comparisons with other non-Western cultures and militaries.
Well, it's not as though he displays any real knowledge of Achaemenid history, culture, or institutions either.
"But the value of Carnage and Culture goes beyond a flawed case study. The book is filled with informative details. Numerous books of quality are like this. I completely disagree with the main points of The Clash of Civilizations, and I think Huntington utterly fails to prove his thesis, but I still enjoyed reading it for the many details and what they suggest along other lines of reasoning. There are so many books like this, I feel embarrassed to point out that the value of a book does not solely or even mainly reside in whether its thesis is proved by the author."
I agree with what you say about Huntington, but completely disagree about Culture and Carnage. I didn't find too many interesting details in it at all -- although I did like Hanson's comparison of Alexander and Hitler. The comparison is not about their bloodthirstiness but about the fact that each distorted the inheritance of their civilisation: Alexander, the Hellenistic, and Hitler the German.
274. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 4:04:33 PM
Message # 265: "PE pooh-poohs the idea of a continuous liberal tradition inherited from Greece and Rome, and says Hanson buys into this fallacy (PE mentions the Magna Carta). But Hanson is not so much concerned with a general Western tradition as he is with a continuous Western military tradition, and as this section I just quoted shows, it is fallacious to think they are necessarily one and the same."
But it's also obvious throughout the book that Hanson believes in a continuous liberal tradition inherited from Greece and Rome, quite apart from their military traditions, and he asserts that this continuity was terribly important to western military success.
Message # 266: PE says that he found the chapters on Lepanto and Cannae the best, but interestingly enough also says that the first half of the book is anachronistic.
Well, by "first half" I mean the part of the book up to Poitiers.
"PE also thinks Hanson is overtly political – a right-winger --but this is probably because he approaches the book only after having read Hanson’s articles."
No. I read Hanson's book when it first appeared. I was introduced to his columns earlier this year. The book definitely left me the impression that it was rabidly political.
275. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 4:18:15 PM
Message # 269: "But PE needs to explain how the Greeks -- who were far less wealthy and had far less resources than the Persians -- were nevertheless much better equipped than their opponents. If the peculiar Greek economy and its differences with the Persian one (including craftsmen in the agora) were not responsible for these differences, as Hanson describes them, then what is?"
I have no idea. But I was taught that the victory at Salamis was thanks to tactics. The Greek navy lured the Persian navy into the straits, where the Greeks had the advantage of mobility over the heavy and cumbersome Persian ships. The light Greek tireme was well-suited to the relatively calm, narrow straits of the Pelopponese, whereas the Persian ships were constructed with navigation on the open sea in mind.
Does Hanson even attribute Salamis to the differences in economy? What I remember from the chapter on Salamis was that in Hanson's view, the Greeks had better morale and individual initiative (because they were politically free, while the Persian forces were composed of slaves), and that a decentralised command structure in which subordinates could question and challenge their commanders was superior to one which in a god-king would execute those who were too free-spirited.
All the same, I recall four objections to this chapter:
(1) Hanson's description of the Persian economy is extremely dated. Whereas many ancient historians have considered religious institutions expensive ideological burdens absorbing valuable resources in unproductive display, Morris Silver argues "the gods" endowed commerce and industry with sacral values encouraging innovation and profit through a process he compares to modern patenting. The temples were important as centers, guarantors, banks, repositories of valuables, and information that enhanced a market economy.
276. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 4:26:12 PM
And of course the god-kings were guarantors of this system. I'm not saying I agree with this, but there is no reason to discount Silver's view.
(2) Hanson's description of the Graeco-Persian wars is selectively tilted toward democratic Athens and ignores the role of oligarchic Sparta. Sparta was crucial to the many land battles of the Graeco-Persian Wars. (Moreover, oligarchic Sparta, in collusion with the Persians, triumphed over Athens in the Pelepponesian war, a fact which would ruin Hanson's neat thesis.)
(3) Since the Persians had in fact conquered most of the northern Greek city-states and the entire eastern side of the Aegean, and were never ejected from the Ionian city-states even after Salamis and Plataea, how can you draw a specifically cultural lesson from Salamis and Plataea?
(4) Everything we know about the Graeco-Persian wars comes from a handful of Greek authors. I don't know how reliable the numbers, whether of casualties or order of battle, truly are.
277. TabouliJones - 9/16/2002 4:37:20 PM
My guess is that current immigration trends in Canada (at least) can largely be explained as the perpetuation of existing immigrant communities or populations. More Chinese than Mexicans are likely to immigrate to Canada because there are already more Chinese than Mexicans here. Relative to a Mexian emigrant, it is likely to be more desirable and more practical for a Chinese person to immigrate to Canada -- specifically: there are Chinese communities here that they are likely to know about and find appealing and they are more likely to have family, friendship and/or business ties here making it (again more appealing, but more importantly) significantly easier for them to satisfy sponsorship, employability and other legal requirements for immigration to Canada. Ditto for Indians and Pakistanis relative to Mexicans. As to what lead to the original influx of Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis, I have no compelling guess beyond suggesting that it may be just an historical accident that has nothing to do with cultural or regional affinities between Canada and these countries.
Incidentally, if one looks at provincial statistics, Ontario and British Columbia are roughly comparable to P.E.s enumeration of U.S. country-wide visible minority percentages. According to 1996 stats, visible minorities (not including aboriginals) represented roughly 15% and 17% of the populatins of Ontario and British Columbia respectively. The visible minority population of Alberta, otoh, is about 10% and that of Quebec about 6%. (I didn't check the stats for other provinces.)
278. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 5:08:29 PM
(I forgot to mention that it's difficult to include the large Puerto Rican presence in the USA as a result of openness of immigrants, since Puerto Rico was annexed by the USA.)
279. sakonige - 9/16/2002 5:42:50 PM
TabouliJones -
Mexicans tend to migrate to highly agricultural regions, which most of Canada isn't.
280. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 9:10:34 PM
Message # 266: "Hanson is surprisingly critical about many elements found in modern right-wingers, particularly Christianity. If Hanson has ever said a nice thing about Christians, I’ve yet to read it."
I've never thought of the intellectual right in the USA as particularly religious. The fact that Hanson isn't too fond of Christianity doesn't change the fact that he talks, sounds and writes like a right-winger.
Message # 267: "PE mentions Hanson’s chapter on Poitiers and unfavorably compares it to Bernard Lewis’ comments at the beginning of The Muslim Discovery of Europe. But this misses the point. Hanson is well aware of the current scholarly opinion on the battle, as he writes at the end of the chapter....It’s also important to remember that Hanson’s main point in looking at Poitiers is to illustrate the importance of landed infantry in use against cavalry, seeing this as a Western tactic derived from the Greeks. The importance of the battle, then, is to see if massed infantry can stand in battle against horsemen, and to make an argument that this use of landed infantry is a distinctly Western manner of warfare."
Sometimes I think your reading of C&C is informed by Hanson's other books. The thesis of C&C, including each of its individual chapters, is much broader than the narrowly military one you seem to be describing in this passage. In the chapter on Poitiers, doesn't Hanson try to make the Dark Ages seem better than its reputation? Doesn't he talk about property, freedom, egalitarianism and even "consensual government"?
281. pseudoerasmus - 9/16/2002 9:15:50 PM
In a good just-so story, one takes a fact and, ex post facto, concocts a theory to explain that fact. But Hanson's chapter on Poitiers is perverse. Never mind that it's chock-full of ridiculous or dubious statements. The very fact that he seeks to explain -- the battle of Tour and Poitiers -- was probably nothing more than a skirmish. Even if it were a battle as great as legend had later made it, Hanson's point can only be made by ignoring or dismissing incovenient facts. By the time of Poitiers, the Arabs had seized in one fell swoop half of the old Roman empire, i.e., the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, Spain and Sicily. Hanson doesn't explain this as much as explain it away in a few dubious paragraphs.
Did not the Byzantines who had held these territories write military treatises? But they were softened up too much by New Testament pacifism....one of those ridiculous statements Hanson makes, even if it has Gibbonian pedigree. Moreover, were not the Byzantines also intellectual heirs to Greece and Rome? They certainly were -- and far more than the Franks. Franks were a Germanic tribe ruling over a Romanised indigenous population of the former Roman province of Gaul. Iberia and North Africa at the time of the Arab conquest were pretty much the same thing -- Romanised indigenous populations in former Roman provinces now ruled by Germanic tribes closely related to the Franks, but with far larger populations than Gaul. Sicily was went beyond all of them: it was a Roman province with a Greek population which had been part of the Hellenistic world for 1000 years at the time of the Arab conquest. Yet Spain, Sicily and North Africa all succumbed to the Arab onslaught. So why were the Arabs defeated in Poitiers but not in Spain, North Africa and Sicily? It's simple: Poitiers was not really a battle and Hanson's chapter presents an unnecessary theory to explain a non-fact.
282. Marc-Albert - 9/17/2002 1:38:39 AM
Well, I would say that Hanson just couldn't decently jump from Cannae to Tenochtitlan - 1700 years - without making a stop over somewhere, and Poitiers, nearly halfway in between, was rather convenient...
Hanson does mention that Poitiers is often considered at most a skirmish or a minor battle of little consequence but he's quick to reply that this opinion is based on contemporary chronicles, written by monks of course, who downplayed Charles Martel's action in retaliation for his confiscation of Church property. Ummm.
If I remember well, Hanson states, rather too briefly to my taste, that Poitier represented once again the superiority of Western infantry againt cavalry, the Franks fightly roman style, in dense pikesmen formation, but again, we now virtually nothing about Poitiers and Frankish battle order circa 732.
Well, I would say that Hanson just couldn't decently jump from Cannae to Tenochtitlan - 1700 years - without making a stop over somewhere, and Poitiers, nearly halfway in between, was rather convenient...
Hanson does mention that Poitiers is often considered at most a skirmish or a minor battle of little consequence but he's quick to reply that this opinion is based on contemporary chronicles, written by monks of course, who downplayed Charles Martel's action in retaliation for his confiscation of Church property. Ummm.
If I remember well, Hanson state, rather too briefly to my taste, that Poitier represented once again the superiority of Western infantry againt cavalry, the Franks fightly roman style, in dense pikesmen formation, but again, I think we now virtually nothing about Poitiers and Frankish battle order circa 732.
283. Andonly - 9/17/2002 4:27:37 PM
"But if you're looking for mediterranean, tropical or subtropical climates, you're heading for the USA not Canada."
I don't disagree with PE that the US's border with Mexico accounts for the majority of Hispanic immigration to the US, as three fourths of Mexican immigrants and their descendents do live in the southwest(CA, TX, AZ, NM). But I think the business about preferring a warm climate doesn't really wash.
For one thing, the majority of Puerto Rican immigrants have settled in New York, not nearby Florida or DC, as one might expect if climate were an important concern. (There are also now lots of Puerto Ricans in New England, I believe.) Moreover, Mexicans, which are nearly 60% of the proportion of all US Hispanics, for some reason have migrated to Illinois in such numbers that the city with the largest number of Mexicans in the US outside of Los Angeles is not Dallas or Houston or Sacramento, but bitterly cold and windy Chicago.
Perhaps Mexicans have not yet ventured en masse as far as Canada because they simply prefer the US?
284. Andonly - 9/17/2002 4:28:07 PM
For reasons other than climate, I mean.
285. Andonly - 9/17/2002 4:44:26 PM
"Whereas many ancient historians have considered religious institutions expensive ideological burdens absorbing valuable resources in unproductive display..."
You know, I have always been puzzled by this presumption (which filters down sort of via implication into semi-scholarly texts on the ancient world). This Morris Silver sounds interesting.
Some people assume Jesus was the first pinko, but as far as I can tell he was simply working in the same general economic tradition as the authors of the Mishnah and the Talmudists. I can't help wondering whether the first century conflict between Jerusalem and Rome had something substantially to do with conflicting economic systems, with Rome prevailing as the more prosperous.
286. glendajean - 9/17/2002 4:57:31 PM
A reporter I knew who covered the El Savadoran immigrant community in DC for the Post once told me that a large percentage of the immigrants came from 3 villages in El Salvador. That particular pattern started during the civil war period of the late 70s,early 80s. By the late 90s, about 80,000 were living in DC. Of course, other Latin American immigrants were settling in the surrounding counties.
I have no clue why they chose DC, but it must have created a link where somebody found jobs that the locals didn't want, word went back home, and then a connection got started.
America's southwestern boundaries were not completely settled until the Mexican War in the 1840s. I assume the boundary lines were fairly easily crossed long after that period.
Interesting factoid about the Mexican community in Chicago, Andonly.
I assume that there are more Mexicans living in San Antonio than Chicago. Is that based on Mexican aliens or does it include Mexican American citizens?
287. Andonly - 9/17/2002 5:40:12 PM
Citizens, I believe.
288. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 5:59:09 PM
"But I think the business about preferring a warm climate doesn't really wash. "
I have no idea why. Surely there are many factors besides climate in determining the dispersion of Latin American migrant populations (including the fact that migrants will simply tend to go where they are already established migrant communities). But the fact that they are concentrated, and persist in their concentration, in the warmer climes amounts to some evidence for a warm-climate preference.
289. sakonige - 9/17/2002 7:37:11 PM
Wombat -
Re: The Kennewick Man digression in the Israel thread, an article reporting the good news you mentioned,
Disputed Prehistoric Bones OK to Study, U.S. Rules
The recent ruling by U.S. Magistrate John Jelderks makes Kennewick Man's ancient remains available to anthropologists who stressed their enormous scientific value.
Kennewick Man is one of the best preserved skeletons of its age ever found. About 90 percent of the bones were recovered, allowing radiocarbon dating and DNA analysis.
Another little factoid I came across:
Mt DNA analysis has shown the linguistic theory put forward by Greenburg might be plausible. Douglas Wallace and colleagues examined modern MtDNA from Native Americans and found that there were 4 distinct types, or lineages represented, they called them A, B, C and D. All were from Asian groups, not Europe or Africa. They found, however, that in Na Dene peoples, only A type MtDNA was present, in Inuit-Aleut only A and D was present. This supported, in their view, the idea of waves of migrations at different times. Using their mutation rate calculations, they suggested 25000 years ago for Amerind, and 12000 years ago for Na-Dene and Inuit-Aleut.
I honestly don't understand why this is such a big deal. So what if the Americas were populated in successive waves from Asia? That may shed new light on American Indians relationships with eachother, but it doesn't affect their relationships with European colonists or the American government in any way. It doesn't mean American Indians are not really American Indians any more. It simply explains why we don't all look like the Hollywood sterotypes.
290. sakonige - 9/17/2002 8:12:09 PM
A map of earliest known American remains showing similarity of the remains to (sterotypical) modern American Indians. The map only includes sites west of the Mississippi, for some reason. Maybe all the remains to the east have already been paved over.
291. Andonly - 9/17/2002 8:20:54 PM
"But the fact that they are concentrated, and persist in their concentration, in the warmer climes amounts to some evidence for a warm-climate preference."
Not much evidence. Those warmer climates just happen to be geographically adjacent to where the immigrants came from, and are still coming from. Meanwhile, they're very much in the process of dispersing elsewhere, not necessarily on the basis of where it's balmy, but perhaps as Sakonige noted, on the basis of where there's farming.
292. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 8:38:35 PM
I'm always thinking about what is modernity and westernisation, and lately I have the following thoughts.
What is culturally most unique about the west (not politically or economically unique about the west) is not women's rights or secularism or even civil liberties, but, in my opinion, post-nationalism.
Now, as someone who is keenly interested in the phenomenon of ethnic conflict, what has always struck me about the West is not that it lacks ethnic conflicts, but that it is UNIQUE, absolutely unique in the world, for harbouring a large population of anti-nationalists. That is, in North America, Australia, Papua New Zealand, and Western Europe there is a large proportion of the population, usually on the left, who rejects their country's national myths, who regularly criticises their country's internal and external behaviour, who find as much to be ashamed of in their past as to be proud of, and who basically finds patriotism a dirty feeling.
I remember vividly at the onset of the Second Chechen War, the spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, in livid frustration at the sceptical, probing questions fielded by western journalists, lashed out at the journalist from Libération, the flagship of left-wing French journalism, and uttered something like "You French committed all kinds of crimes during the Algerian war, why are you on such a high horse now?" And the next day, Libération had an editorial leader in reply, which said, in essence: "Mr ___, you are absolutely right, France behaved criminally and shamefully during the Algerian War, and Libération is proud to have been an open and vocal collaborator with the Algerians in ejecting France from Algeria".
293. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 8:40:04 PM
Everywhere in the former Soviet Union I have noticed that -- unlike Western Europeans, North Americans, and Australasians -- Russians show no remorse for, or even display evidence that they were aware of, the multitude of sins their ancestors had committed in their history of imperial expansion.
Russians are proud of their bloody conquest of the Caucasus; they do not rue the quasi-genocidal forced sedentarisation of Central Asians, instead they boast that they civilised and enlightened the buggers; and if they are even aware that their imperial expansion into Siberia resulted in as many horrors for the aboriginals of Siberia as the colonisation of the Americas and Australia had resulted for those aboriginals, then the Russians might respond, at least we gave those indigenous people writing.
Even if there are people in the West who think like the above, few in Britain or France or Germany or Australia would ever actually say anything like that. A large proportion of the population would more likely be citing the litany of crimes their countries had committed in the past. Most Australians and New Zealanders are tiresomely repentant about how nasty their ancestors had been to the aboriginals. At least as many Britons are likely to believe that Britain exploited and deindustrialised India into wrenching poverty as did any good for it. Germans have been immobilised into a kind of pathological navel-gazing docility over their war guilt, as though never again will they allow themselves normal feelings of love of country (except during football matches).
In essence, the West is post-nationalist. I suppose this is a kind of cultural adjunct to Fukuyama's end of history thesis.
294. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 8:41:56 PM
There are three countries stuck somewhere between nationalism and post-nationalism: Israel, Japan and India.
Despite the vastitude of nationalist myths that surround its founding, and the ethnic conflict with the Arabs which is deafeningly full of the same prejudices, myths and delusions as those found in all other ethnic conflicts, Israel is still distinguished by the presence of an anti-nationalist left, including a large group of historians who reject the Zionist foundation narrative and adopt the Arab narrative about the founding of Israel. (Needless to say, the equivalent --adoption of the Zionist narrative -- in the Arab countries is totally inconceivable at this stage.)
Official Japan is thoroughly nationalist. Its educational system literally whitewashes its WW2 history. There are references to "misfortunes" and "incidents" in school textbooks, but few Japanese have an inkling about the extent of its criminal recent history. Not the biological experiments in Manchuria, not the conscription of millions of "comfort women", not the Rape of Nanking, etc. But Japan too has a left-wing academia who despises the official nationalist myths and has tried hard, despite the threats from the right-wing extremists, to open up education & public discussion about the war.
India too has a small post-nationalist class. The anglophone "secular progressives" (Marjoribanks is a prime example) are the politically correct, mostly anglophone and upper-caste, Indians who are despised by the Hindu nationalists. Secular progressives, or p-secs, are regarded as hating everything Hindu, loving everything Muslim, loving everything Marxist, hating everything Indian, adopting neocolonialist perspectives, etc. But these constitute a small class, and probably dwindling.
295. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 8:42:56 PM
No other country qualifies as post-nationalist or verging on post-nationalism, in my opinion. Not Turkey, not Greece, not Russia, not Poland, not China or Taiwan, not South Korea, not any country in Eastern Europe or Latin America. In fact, China finds itself in a rabidly nationalist phase, and I think India is going backward and entering its own hyper-nationalist phase.
You have left-wingers in a country like Turkey, of course, but Turks, left and right, line up in depressing unanimity on the key negative issues which define Turkish nationalism: the rivalry with Greece, the denial of the Armenian genocide, and the sentimental concern for the remnants of empire (Muslims in the Balkans). You won't find a Turk, in Turkey or elsewhere, conceding that just maybe, just maybe, the Ottoman Empire did commit genocide against the Armenians; nor is there any Armenian, either in thoroughly nationalist Armenia or in the hyper-nationalist diaspora, who would concede that just maybe the Armenians in the Ottoman empire hadn't been as innocent as the Jews were in the Second World War. Pretty much the same story in Greece. Greece must be the only "western" country whose mainstream left cheered on the Bosnian Serbs entering Srebrenica, which was covered like a football match in Greece. (Greeks and Serbs share affiliation in Orthodox Christianity.)
Nationalist countries have populations who are almost unanimously attuned to group self-defensiveness, demonisation of group enemies, propagating myths of national victimisation, and creating myths which boost collective self-esteem.
Post-nationalist countries do have such elements, but only in competition with the anti-nationalists.
296. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 8:43:33 PM
A long time ago Bernard Lewis said something which struck me: all civilisations have committed barbarities, but western civilisation is unique in having created ideologies of repentence for those barbarities. Movements against racism, ethnocentrism, colonialism, imperialism, neocolonialism, neoimperialism, etc. are all based on the works of westerners.
297. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 8:55:10 PM
Hindu fundamentalism is a funny thing. It combines a multitude of quite incongruous elements.
(1) It has a rhetoric of victimisation that is typically left-wing Third-Worldist. India's backwardness is blamed on imperialist British exploitation. Depicting British imperialism as far more brutal than it ever was, the Hindu fundamentalists claim Britain actually deindustrialised and impoverished India.
(2) At the same time, it has a "right-wing" rhetoric of anti-communism, although by "communism" and "Marxism" it means the quasi-socialism of Nehruvian India. If India was freed from the clutches of British exploitation, then it was delievered into the hands of Nehruvian commissars who systematically destroyed India's potential and sold out to the Chinese.
(3) Hindu fundamentalists profess to be pro-American and pro-western, and seek closer ties with the USA and Western Europe, but they are also full of anti-western impulses. Just consider the way some of them simply go berserk about Valentine's day or accuse western missionaries of encouraging "genocide" of Hindus in the northeast.
298. marjoribanks - 9/17/2002 9:00:30 PM
I shall respond to the posts above in more detail when I have time. The ones on India aren't totally wrong, they're just quite shallow. In fact, India has probably solid hundreds of millions of people who can easily be classified as "anti-national", and more besides. Pseuder doesn't know much about caste politics, for example, which in huge swathes of the country are the only politics, and which must be examined in order to arrive at any conclusions of the type he seeks.
Interesting topic, tho. Thanks for bringing it up.
--
I actually came in here to trumpet my discovery of a book by a Singaporean named Kishore Mahbubani (ambassador to the UN), entitled 'Can Asians Think?' It's Diamondean in the scope of its enquiry, though vastly more shallow in execution. But the introduction is very interesting (it's all I've read so far, on the subway).
299. marjoribanks - 9/17/2002 9:04:46 PM
FWIW, I am not despised but festooned with appreciation by the Hindutvadis, to the point of some significant embarrasment. Pseuder's pigeonholing does have a very limited amount of truth to it, but only that very limited amount.
300. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 9:05:08 PM
I am well aware of India's caste politics, but involvement in caste politics does not make one an anti-nationalist. The overwhelming majority of Indians are solidly nationalists, not necessarily Hindu fundamentalist nationalists but nationalists nonetheless.
301. marjoribanks - 9/17/2002 9:07:20 PM
Again, on caste, Pseuder's point about ideologies of repentance is bollocks. India has had such movements, ideologies, forever. I will show better examples but one can easily read Buddhism, or better still Sikhism, as a religion born out of an ideology of repentance.
--
Bye now.
302. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 9:07:26 PM
Message # 299 is nothing more than self-absorption. Hindutvadis hate the "secular progressives". Just because they might make an exception for Marzipranks on account of his untouchable origins does not change that fact.
303. marjoribanks - 9/17/2002 9:09:26 PM
Sigh.
I'll be back.
304. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 9:14:24 PM
(Maybe my classification of Marzipranks as a secular progressive was incorrect. He shows many signs typical of nationalism.)
Message # 301: "Pseuder's point about ideologies of repentance is bollocks. India has had such movements, ideologies, forever. I will show better examples but one can easily read Buddhism, or better still Sikhism, as a religion born out of an ideology of repentance.
Buddhism is not in the least an ideology of repentance. As for Sikhism, however one wants to spin it, it is basically a variant of Hinduism shorn of its caste hierarchy, with a bit of iconoclasm thrown in.
305. ronski - 9/17/2002 9:20:05 PM
marj,
When you return, there is a cooking question waiting for you in The Good Life.
306. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 10:01:46 PM
Message # 282: "Hanson does mention that Poitiers is often considered at most a skirmish or a minor battle of little consequence but he's quick to reply that this opinion is based on contemporary chronicles, written by monks of course, who downplayed Charles Martel's action in retaliation for his confiscation of Church property."
The point I made earlier was that, according to Bernard Lewis, "Poitiers is largely legend" is the truer picture because there is no mention of it, at best a single fleeting reference, in the voluminous historiography of the early years of conquest. By contrast, Arab historians were effusive with commentary about the series of Arab defeats in attempts to take Constantinople.
Instead of the one on Poitiers, Hanson could have had a nice chapter about how the Byzantines staved off simultaneous assaults on Constantinople by the Asiatic Bulgars arriving from the northwest and the Muslim armies from the southeast, but for some reason he didn't.
(On the other hand, it may not be convenient to his thesis that Egypt and Syria were probably won by the Muslim armies in large part with the cooperation of the locals, who were tired of Byzantine attempts to crush Monophysitism, Arianism, and other Christian sects in the East.)
307. alistairconnor - 9/17/2002 10:12:03 PM
Pinscher:
I don't take seriously the idea of land borders and colonial ties in this age. What borders does Canada share with Hong Kong?
That's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Canada has land borders only with the US; and never had any colonies, as far as I know. Yet it has immigrants! Wow, what a paradox eh?
Land borders and colonies are a bleedin' obvious influence on sources of immigration :
* Land borders tend to increase the proportion of illegal immigrants, later regularised
* Colonial relationships create cultural affinities, human contacts, and generally, bilateral immigration agreements.
Lacking these specific constraints, Canada has, it seems, established a "fair and equitable" setup, which is not biased towards or against any particular country. In practice, it will be biased in favour of countries where people have relatively high educational standards and relatively low standard of living and/or prospects of advancement at home : i.e. people who are motivated to get the hell out, and can score high enough on the immigration questionnaire.
308. alistairconnor - 9/17/2002 10:22:31 PM
[cont]
If this has the effect of relatively high proportions of Hongkong Chinese and Poles, rather than Mexicans or Vietnamese, that's hardly surprising.
Contrast this with the US approach : quotas by country, if I have understood correctly. I have no information about the criteria for setting the quotas, but I would guess that bilateral negotiations count for a lot. I would guess that the quota for less-developed countries will tend to be filled by less-qualified people -- the local elites tend to stay put.
For example, if there is a quota of 500 Costa Ricans and 500 Poles, I would expect the level of education to be a lot higher among the Poles. And most of the Costa Ricans probably wouldn't qualify for Canada, where they would be competing head to head with the Hong Kongese and Poles.
I also have no opinion about the fairness or rightness of all this...
309. TabouliJones - 9/17/2002 10:43:07 PM
I just found this recent study regarding the effects of American immigration quotas on immigration to Canada. I only browsed through it, but it seems to suggest that American quotas may skew Canadian immigration in certain directions --that immigrants from certain countries that are unable to get into the U.S. due to American quotas may decide that Canada is a reasonable enough approximation to the U.S. and end up there (well, for me, here) instead. I may give it a proper read if I have a chance.
310. TabouliJones - 9/17/2002 10:45:22 PM
Sorry, though recent, that study specifically applies to immigration in the 1920s. However, it stands to reason that country specific American immigration quotas are likely to have an impact on Canadian immigration patterns.
311. Andonly - 9/17/2002 11:25:46 PM
"India too has a small post-nationalist class. The anglophone "secular progressives" ..."
I've also run into an odd amalgam of anglophone progressive and Indian nationalist online... he may in fact be a conflicted Hindu nationalist or else a secular Muslim Indian.
Actually, the latter makes a little more sense given his particular antipathies.
312. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 11:45:40 PM
Reading back, I see I need to make a correction to one of my earlier posts: the Ionian city-states were eventually liberated after Salamis and Plataea. Nonetheless, the point remains unchanged because the whole of Ionian Greece had been under Achaemenid rule for three-quarters of a century (which is about the average length of time the Achaemenids held anything) prior to S. and P. (and under Lydian rule before that). Moreover, Ionian Greece returned to Persian rule after the Peloponnesian War, until Alexander destroyed the Persian empire.
313. Andonly - 9/17/2002 11:55:38 PM
"A long time ago Bernard Lewis said something which struck me: all civilisations have committed barbarities, but western civilisation is unique in having created ideologies of repentence for those barbarities."
I also recall being struck by that assertion (Lewis must have reiterated the point some time in the last few years) and thought immediately that it couldn't be true. But I certainly don't know of any evidence to the contrary.
Does anyone here believe this tendency to repentance developed in the west any time before the end of WWII? Surely the development of the European critique of nationalism followed the defeat of Germany and Japan. I think it eventually became somehow connected ideologically, in the US anyway, to the youth rebellion of the 1960s and protest against the Vietnam war. Which was all very marketable, apparently.
314. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 12:09:43 AM
Certainly, de-colonisation by Britain and France was pretty rapid after WWII. I guess since that war was seen as a moral rather than as a nationalistic one (unlike WWI), the war itself was the starting point of post-nationalism in Europe (in any case, I had understood that nationalism was invented in Europe in the 19th century)
315. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 12:19:50 AM
Just musing...
I would guess that left-wing internationalism is the ideological foundation of post-nationalism. Knocked back by WWI, discredited by the Soviet Union, which preached internationalism but practised national self-interest, it found a practical expression in WWII.
Will other regions of the world copy European post-nationalism, after having copied European nationalism? Probably some moral watershed is required, where a common cause will be seen to unite peoples beyond national interests.
Can't see that on the horizon yet.
316. Andonly - 9/18/2002 12:21:32 AM
What about South Africa? There must be some germ of a repentance ideology there (Truth and Reconciliation Commission and all). But it doesn't seem to have translated into post-nationalism in the sense of acknowledging much collective guilt or responsibilty for anything other than apartheid.
For instance, the government's AIDS policies suggest, if anything, a tendency to avoid confronting difficult internal issues by spouting such nonsense as "HOMOSEX IS NOT IN BLACK CULTURE" or insisting that "black" anti-AIDS drugs (which do not work and tend to kill off patients) are preferable to "white" ones.
317. Andonly - 9/18/2002 3:09:01 AM
On another subject, does anyone here know what the hell is happening in Sudan?
I understand only this much:
The US, with Europe, recently negotiated a peace deal in Sudan over its civil war between the Xtian (and animist?) south and the Muslim north.
That deal is now in jeopardy. Sudan's vice president is an Islamist whose mentor has been jailed, probably at the VP's behest and that of the president, who favored the negotiated arrangement. But the VP doesn't like the deal and is interested in recapturing a key city before the ceasefire is official. He has somehow subverted the peace arangement, which called for an end to 18 years of hostilities that have resulted in some 2 millions dead; the separation of religion and governance, or something (it's hard to know just what reporters mean when they talk about such things); and the prospect of the south acquiring independence, soon.
Egypt was also unhappy with the peace deal, considering it a case of western meddling bad for Egypt; the oil fields are in the non-Islamic south.
The US's recent interest in Sudan probably has something to do with stabilizing countries that might otherwise fall under al Qaeda influence.
I can barely put together this puzzle, and what I come up with is more speculative than I'd like. Is anyone following Sudanese politics?
318. Andonly - 9/18/2002 3:12:32 AM
And another thing: has anyone any advice as to how to go about investigating a guy in Turkey who is either a shady character or a serious schlemiel?
319. Andonly - 9/18/2002 3:14:32 AM
(We're talking a somewhat minor shady character, if that's his deal; just maybe not the kind of guy you want your sister marrying.)
320. pseudoerasmus - 9/18/2002 3:24:35 AM
Major international private investigation agencies surely have an affiliate in Turkey. When I worked for J P Morgan in the 1990s my department hired a British firm to investigate a Greek investor resident in Lithuania. It will cost you serious money, though.
321. Andonly - 9/18/2002 7:36:44 AM
Yeah, I figured Turkey isn't out of the range of extremely expensive investigative agencies. But this character is not exactly high-profile. He's in his early 30s and runs little tours for Europeans off a small rented boat.
The guy has an ex-girlfriend who supposedly is a drunk and a Brit. If I can find out her name, maybe there's a lead: somewhere in the British empire is a woman who knows this man well enough to have left him.
My chief concern is that he is, in theory, married. The story goes that his folks married him off as per custom, and for reasons of convenience he and his wife never divorced, in spite of having never lived together. The existence of the wife has only recently come to light. He has officially been married to her for some 8 years, at some point during which he had the relationship with the Drunken Brit.
All of this comes with vaguely convincing cultural explanations, as does the fact that he will shortly stand trial for violating some building code or other. The story here is that his friend, and not he, is actually responsible for the infraction, and he is taking the heat because his friend is in the army and would suffer a stiffer penalty. Or something to that effect.
I don't know, maybe this is my big excuse to take a vacation in Turkey. It's probably cheaper than hiring a PI.
322. PincherMartin - 9/19/2002 4:37:46 PM
Message # 273
No I didn't think of it like that at all. Hanson's book is much more a social scientist's book than a historian's book. In fact no historian would write a book like Hanson's today.
Hanson's Carnage and Culture is a throwback, modeling itself after histories that studied the great or decisive battles (books like Edward Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World). Hanson modifies this template for his own purposes that fall more in line with a social scientist's.
But when I said that from the viewpoint of a social scientist, the whole enterprise is flawed, I meant that Hanson makes a poor social scientist. He doesn't try to control the variables that might impact his thesis. Despite his overarching claims, he leaves out huge blocks of time and major events with little or no explanation. Key elements in his argument are ignored and he often digresses to some interesting but totally irrelevant point.
You once wrote here that Bernard Lewis could have used training as a social scientist. This is even more true of Hanson. Lewis has a natural feel for constructing a tight argument that Hanson does not. With Hanson, one has to wait for key points or brilliant passages to reveal themselves. Often, they are worth the wait, but too often that wait is quite long.
Well, it's not as though he displays any real knowledge of Achaemenid history, culture, or institutions either.
Why do you say that?
continued ...
323. PincherMartin - 9/19/2002 4:39:12 PM
Hanson is a scholar of classical Greece, well-read in the history of Persian Empire. He may not be on the cutting edge of research for the Achaemenid period, but that hardly makes him ignorant of its institutions, culture and history. As you say in another section of your argument, it's not like the history of the ancient world is replete with source material, and in any broad thesis argued by a scholar, whether Guns, Germs, and Steel or Carnage and Culture, there will be many areas the author knows better than others, and some in which he may know relatively little.
But it's also obvious throughout the book that Hanson believes in a continuous liberal tradition inherited from Greece and Rome, quite apart from their military traditions, and he asserts that this continuity was terribly important to western military success.
Hanson shows he is aware of the general debate on a continuous classical tradition, but doesn't deal with it so much as assume the traditional view on the matter is correct. In any case, as I said earlier, it's irrelevant to Hanson's main point: that a Western military tradition running back to the days of Greeks is responsible for the West's dominance against other cultures on the field of battle.
continued ...
324. PincherMartin - 9/19/2002 4:45:06 PM
*****
Message # 275 and Message # 276
1) Silver's thesis sounds interesting, but also seems counterintuitive.
2) I forget Hanson's argument for Sparta, but he does deal with this question.
3) Hanson draws a distinction between certain Greek city-states during the classical period, who had particular farming habits suited to their geography that led to the military innovations that became part of the western military tradition, and Greeks elsewhere. I don't remember if Hanson deals with this in Culture and Carnage or elsewhere.
4) Since you're a fan of writing on the history of evolution and ethnology -- two subjects in which scholars weave a great deal of interpretation around very few facts -- why take Hanson or other classical scholars to task for doing essentially the same thing? Obviously, any conclusions on specific events made in these kinds of books are provisional, but that doesn't mean a general trend can't be discerned.
325. PincherMartin - 9/19/2002 5:03:37 PM
Message # 280
Sometimes I think your reading of C&C is informed by Hanson's other books. The thesis of C&C, including each of its individual chapters, is much broader than the narrowly military one you seem to be describing in this passage. In the chapter on Poitiers, doesn't Hanson try to make the Dark Ages seem better than its reputation? Doesn't he talk about property, freedom, egalitarianism and even "consensual government"?
It's true that on some points I might be combining elements from the five or six books by Hanson I've read. For example, I'm sure I remember reading something Hanson wrote about the classical Greek city-state economy and agriculture, and their positive reinforcement on the Greek's peculiar way of warfare. But I went through four of Hanson's books last night and was unable to find a word on it. Now I'm trying to remember if I read it in another article by Hanson or in a book of his that I presently don't have.
But for the particular chapter on Poitiers, everything I referred to is in Culture and Carnage. All throughout the book, Hanson digresses in a manner that I can understand why you think he says a great deal more than he really does. He often goes off on tangents that have little to do with the main point and he assumes many things even after he shows that he knows there is debate on the issue. And with Poitiers, this is compounded by the fact there is really very little known about the battle, so Hanson puffs up the chapter even more than usual with general comments on the history of the Franks, the Arabs, Christianity, and other more obscure items.
But you originally accused Hanson of exaggerating the importance of the battle and of not being aware of recent scholarly opinion on it. That is certainly not the case.
326. marjoribanks - 9/19/2002 7:35:16 PM
Okay, let's see what I can accomplish in a very small window of time here.
--
all civilisations have committed barbarities, but western civilisation is unique in having created ideologies of repentence for those barbarities. Movements against racism, ethnocentrism, colonialism, imperialism, neocolonialism, neoimperialism, etc. are all based on the works of westerners.
Caste, varna, is often misunderstood as an outright form of racism, as in racism of the black/white variety seen during the Apartheid era or pre-civil rights US. In my opinion, however, it fits into the short laundry list above.
I don't have time, really, to discuss the make up of Indian society from early times. To simplify matters, let's say that caste oppression was part of the very makeup of the rashtra, and was a significant part of the very conception of nationhood, wherever you went in India. You can look at the role of the Iyengars in Tamil Nadu, or better still the Namboodiris in Kerala to note exactly how parallel the phenomenon of caste is to those in Pseuder's list.
327. marjoribanks - 9/19/2002 7:35:31 PM
In India, with exactly zero influence from "works of westerners", there have been repeated and fervent anti-caste movements literally since time immemorial. Buddhism was partly a reaction (in my opinion) to caste crimes. Certainly Sikhism was. It may be a variant of Hinduism, but intrinsic in it is that "ideology of repentance" that Pseuder talks about. Furthermore, there have been powerful anti-Brahmanical movements, particularly in the South, for at least 400 years. In Tamil Nadu, where Brahmanical control was strong, it has actually led to historical purges of the Tamil Brahmins who have thus wound up across the Southern part of India. In these historical movements, the protagonists of anti-Brahminism, or anti-caste ideology, were explicity rejecting the most potent foundation stones of the society and polity, this in my opinion makes them, per se, profoundly anti-national.
328. marjoribanks - 9/19/2002 7:38:30 PM
One of the reasons I have continually pestered that nut, Narada, for his Concise History of the Tamils is because of the constant and prominent thread of caste politics and violence in that history. Even today caste politics, anti-brahmanism, is a huge factor in that state.
329. marjoribanks - 9/19/2002 7:50:45 PM
Post 297 is quite shallow, more than a bit confused, and occasionally contradictory. However, it is somewhat informed, which is a great and welcome contrast to Andonly's totally inane readings. Frankly, the very small amount she's posted on India contains such ridiculousness that I don't even want to read a word more on the matter.
--
Some points to be read in the context of 297.
1) Hindu fundamentalist is a stupid word. There is no dogma or textual reverence in Hinduism. Use rightist instead.
2) Hindus who are nationalist should not be confused sith Hindu rightists of the VHP/Bajrang Dal ilk. India is indeed undergoing an interesting and occasionally worrisome trend of nationalism. This is across the board, though, and not an exclusively Hindu phenomenon. Today, in the Indian government, it would be hard to find a more strident nationalist than George Fernandes, the catholic defense minister. Similarly, you will be hard pressed to find a more nationalist glorious-past-proponent than the Indian President, Abdul Kalam, a Muslim.
3) Hindu Rightists are still fairly insignficant in number, though their clout is fairly important in a handful of states. It should be noted that the BJP has won elections in only a tiny portion of the country, and only one eceonomically advanced state. That state, Gujerat, has historically been the stronghold of the RSS youth movement. In the other important state held by rightists, they were voted in because the state Congress was nakedly and frighteningly corrupt. In Goa, which is also BJP, the party is not at all rightist and the local leader is the best CM the state has ever seen.
330. marjoribanks - 9/19/2002 7:59:43 PM
Furthermore:
- Point 1 in 297 is inane. It is not just Hindu rightists who believe that the British impoverished India and retarded its prospects but every Indian other than the late Nirad Chaudhuri.
- Point 2 is shallow and overwrought. The Hindu rightists are not anti-communist except in plain political party terms. In fact, the Hindutvadis are anti-globalization and for all kinds of social programs which are even more socialist-minded than Congress even had. They are now formally for some liberalization, but that is because any other policy is inelectable in India. The BJP has stalled, endlessly, in selling off state assets, for example.
- Point 3 is idiotic. The Hindutvadis are opportunistic is seeking ties with the US and Israel, that is about it. But the extremely small-scale violence in Mumbai about Valentine's Day had nothing to do with bigger ideologies or any national movement whatsoever. It was simply a means for the ground-level goondas, street-mbs, to demonstrate their minimal strength.
Really, Pseuder needs to stick to strict academic readings of India and Indian affairs. On languages, economics, ethnology, etc - he's fantastically welcome reading. On this stuff, this mostly juvenile take on Indian nationalism and Hindu "fundamentalism" - he's awfully half-baked.
331. marjoribanks - 9/19/2002 8:06:00 PM
I'm out of here. But maybe this Srinivasan column is relevant to some of the above.
332. pseudoerasmus - 9/20/2002 12:11:25 AM
Marjoribanks is being very silly, missing the point and mired in details he cannot transcend in order to see the larger picture.
When I used the term "ideology of repentance", I meant a set of ideas, often consisting of revisionist or reinterpretative historiography, that question, debunk and overthrow the myths upon which the revisionist's own nation was founded; and that highlights the sinfulness of his nation's historical behaviour toward other peoples and nations. That's post-nationalism.
I did not mean some kind of internal reform movement which called for justice for the downtrodden, which has existed in most places at many different times. Religious movements against caste in India are not ideologies of national repentance, but reform movements. Within Roman Catholicism in Europe, there were movements to abolish the wealth of the Church and redistribute it to the peasants. (These rather early terrorists assassinated rich bishops and burnt ornate residences.)
When I said India is stuck in nationalism, I did not mean to reduce Indian nationalism to Hindu fundamentalism. Right-wing Hindu fundamentalist-nationalists are but a subset of Indian nationalists, and most Indians are indeed "normal" nationalists. But Hindu fundamentalism represents the extreme principle of what I'm talking about.
The point is that Indians -- regardless of whether they are Hindu fundie-nationalists or just "normal" nationalists -- are not yet a post-nationalist people. They are still stuck in that phase of consciousness where they are nursing the insults and resentments they feel about their past and having to boost their national self-esteem in various ways -- without the post-nationalist counterweight of national scepticism, national self-doubt, and national shame.
333. pseudoerasmus - 9/20/2002 12:17:18 AM
Compensatory nationalism is evident in the rejection of western Indo-European studies, in the claim that Indian mathematicians had preceded Greek mathematicians in many important discoveries, in the belief that democracy in India has indigenous roots (a belief once expressed by Marjoribanks), etc. So when Marjoribanks says:
"It's not just Hindu rightists who believe that the British impoverished India and retarded its prospects but every Indian other than the late Nirad Chaudhuri."
this only proves my point: almost every Indian engages in the compensatory nationalism of blaming Indian economic backwardness on British colonialism (and, in the case of the Hindu fundies, on centuries of Muslim rule). Many Indians believe that if it wasn't for British imperialism India would have experienced industrialisation centuries ago.
There are far many more Britons who believe that their country impoverished India than there are Indians who believe that the British had little to do with their underdevelopment. That's because Britons are post-nationalist and Indians are nationalist.
And by the way, Chaudhuri eminently qualifies as a nationalist. His comments on Ayodhya could be reduced to: "Muslims have no right to complain; their ancestors destroyed so many Hindu temples".
Note: whether any of these claims about Indian history are true or false is not relevant. What matters to determining nationalism and post-nationalism is bias.
334. pseudoerasmus - 9/20/2002 12:19:10 AM
Pincher
(1) I think you once again downplay the general argument and focus on the more narrowly military argument. But Hanson does not say that "the West" inherited only the military culture, ideas and traditions of Greece & Rome. Rather what he argues is that "the West" inherited the socio-politico-cultural characteristics which conferred on the West devastating military advantages over the non-West. And those prerequisites were, variously, democracy, free citizenship, egalitarianism, capitalism, "open markets", "disinterested secular research", consensual government, civil audit, etc.
(2) You acknowledged earlier that you felt Hanson was not terribly knowledgeable about the non-western cultures in those chapters after the classical period. I think precisely the same thing about the whole book, including the classical period. I think you give him the benefit of the doubt because he's a classical historian (even though his specialty is classical agronomy) and classical historians supposedly know about ancient Persia. Well, I can't remember what he listed for his bibliography on Salamis and Gaugamela, but his descriptions of Achaemenid Persia drew, almost exclusively it seemed, from Olmstead. And Olmstead is to ancient Persian studies as Jowett is to classical studies.
335. pseudoerasmus - 9/20/2002 12:20:53 AM
(3) I don't know why Silver's argument is counterintuitive. His main point is that in an age when communication & technology were obviously primitive, the authority of the state had to rest as much on its supposedly divine basis as on brute force. This was acutely true of large empires, including the various Greek empires. And the sacred authority of the state is what made commerce and markets possible because contracts, laws governing markets, and property rights had to be invested with divine sanction before they were respected. Silver is a modernist: he argues strenuously that the ancient societies of the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East qualified as capitalist. But the so-called primitivists dismiss the idea that ancient societies, including classical Greece, had capitalism or even markets in the modern sense. Hanson rejects primitivism, which would ruin his neat parable of the clash between Capitalist Greece and Socialist Persia, and arbitrarily embraces modernism, apparently without realising that the dominant tendency among modernists today is in line with Silver's (i.e., both practised capitalism).
(4) Classical Athens was literally a pure democracy: every (free) adult male participated in a kind of all citizens' assembly which elected the functionaries of the state. Sparta was an oligarchy, with superficial aspects of democracy, very much like Hanson's description of Carthage.
"Since you're a fan of writing on the history of evolution and ethnology -- two subjects in which scholars weave a great deal of interpretation around very few facts -- why take Hanson or other classical scholars to task for doing essentially the same thing?"
I thought I only took Hanson to task. And I don't understand your comparison. Who are you comparing Hanson with?
336. concerned - 9/20/2002 8:36:31 AM
"It's not just Hindu rightists who believe that the British impoverished India and retarded its prospects but every Indian other than the late Nirad Chaudhuri."
Then, they're fools. PE has a much more realistic take on the actuality.
337. pseudoerasmus - 9/20/2002 2:43:30 PM
I did not give a "take on the actuality" of the impact of British imperialism. I merely talked about who has what opinions and beliefs.
338. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 9:39:28 AM
Message # 280
In the chapter on Poitiers, doesn't Hanson try to make the Dark Ages seem better than its reputation? Doesn't he talk about property, freedom, egalitarianism and even "consensual government"?
Well, I don't know what you think of the Dark Ages, but I was always taught that rather than representing some benighted state for Europe, the "Dark" in the Dark ages just simply meant we don't know very much about the period.
Hanson, by the way, doesn't try to portray the period as particularly enlightened; in fact, it's rather obvious he believes the traditional view that Europe fell behind during this period. He hints in a few places -- without arguing the point in a direct sustained manner -- that Christianity was to blame for this.
339. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 10:01:15 AM
Message # 281
By the time of Poitiers, the Arabs had seized in one fell swoop half of the old Roman empire, i.e., the Middle East, Egypt, North Africa, Spain and Sicily. Hanson doesn't explain this as much as explain it away in a few dubious paragraphs.
He does say the Western-educated populations that ruled in North Africa and the Middle East, which the Arabs replaced, were small and insignificant compared to the local indigenous populations there. Given the Arabs high ideological motivation and the geographical suitability of horse warfare to the steppes and deserts of those regions, Hanson argues it's no surprise these sparsely-populated Western elites there could be overrun.
Poitiers is significant to Hanson because two forces of approximately equal size -- one Arab, one Western -- meet on the battlefield and the Arabs are decimated, largely because of Western infantry. Hanson acknowledges, among other things, that home field advantage, the non-military intentions of the Arabs, etc., may have played a part in this, but he also goes on to say that Poiters would be just the first step in a process of pushing the Muslims, first out of France, then out of most of Europe, before finally the West would launch attacks against the heartland of the Muslim empire during the Crusades.
340. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 10:06:36 AM
Almost all of the rest of PE's Message # 281 is dealt with by Hanson -- PE either doesn't like his explanations or has forgotten them.
341. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 10:13:48 AM
Message # 282
If I remember well, Hanson states, rather too briefly to my taste, that Poitier represented once again the superiority of Western infantry againt cavalry, the Franks fightly roman style, in dense pikesmen formation, but again, we now virtually nothing about Poitiers and Frankish battle order circa 732.
Marc Albert's comment here is accurate. Poitiers, the battle, is given fairly short shift by Hanson. A few comments are cited that suggest the Arabs felt like they were battling "a wall" in the Franks, but most of the chapter doesn't deal with the battle at Poitiers.
342. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 11:36:05 AM
Message # 288
I have no idea why. Surely there are many factors besides climate in determining the dispersion of Latin American migrant populations (including the fact that migrants will simply tend to go where they are already established migrant communities). But the fact that they are concentrated, and persist in their concentration, in the warmer climes amounts to some evidence for a warm-climate preference.
More than likely, most Latin Americans head to where there is labor-intensive agriculture. In California's 58 counties, there is a huge variance between where the greatest percentage of Hispanics (in California, that is mostly Mexicans) are located, with sometimes very large differences in neighboring counties. When I glanced at the stats, it appears most are found in primarily ag regions with the highest percentage in areas known for their labor-intensive agriculture. In the areas with rice and wheat, there aren't a large percentage of Hispanics. In places with large tracts of land dedicated to strawberries, tomatoes, etc., there are a large percentage of Hispanics.
Los Angeles County is really the only obvious exception to this rule. Several counties in the central and northern regions of California have a higher percentage of Hispanics than San Diego County does. I don't know what kind of crops Canada has, but I doubt it has a strong need for labor-intensive agriculture laborers like California or other U.S. states.
By the way, there has simply not been a high percentage of Hispanics in the U.S. until the last three decades.
343. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 12:15:09 PM
Message # 306
PE says his point in mentioning Lewis was to stress his point that "Poitiers is largely a legend". I don't remember Lewis putting it in exactly this way in The Muslim Discovery of Europe. Instead what I remember was a convincing description that Poiters was simply not an important historical event to Arabs as it would later be to Europeans -- that, instead, the Arabs were focusing their might on battling the Byzantium Empire, and Poiters was to them merely a footnote on a large raid during that period.
And as I originally replied to PE, Hanson was aware of this interpretation, but felt that so long as Arabs met Westerns on the battlefield in approximately equal numbers, one could still make some inferences about the battle's outcome. PE acts (see Message # 257) as if Hanson had no idea Poitiers was considered by many scholars not to be a major event. Not only is Hanson aware of this, he appears to accept that interpretation as the correct one.
344. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 12:37:16 PM
Alistair --
That's a non-sequitur if I've ever seen one. Canada has land borders only with the US; and never had any colonies, as far as I know. Yet it has immigrants! Wow, what a paradox eh?
The U.S. has always had this land border with Mexico (with some adjustments here and there in the nineteenth century ;-)), but Mexican immigration to the U.S. is a recent phenonmenon of the last three decades.
Land borders and colonies are a bleedin' obvious influence on sources of immigration :
* Land borders tend to increase the proportion of illegal immigrants, later regularised
See above. If land borders are an obvious influence then why wasn't Mexico an important source of immigration until recently?
* Colonial relationships create cultural affinities, human contacts, and generally, bilateral immigration agreements.
Certainly, this is important in some cases, but immigration to the U.S. from the Philippines is recent (as is all immigration to the U.S. from non-white countries), distanced somewhat from its colonial role in the southeast Asian country.
And referring to Vietnam as a U.S. colony is goofy Marxist talk.
345. jexster - 9/21/2002 1:42:49 PM
"puppet?" "crime scene" "sham" "shame" not "colony"...if we'd won the war, if we COULD have won the war, perhaps so...cam ranh bay, oil...tourism!!! we would have then had a bloody colonial war and a colony.
346. jexster - 9/21/2002 2:12:20 PM
all civilisations have committed barbarities, but western civilisation is unique in having created ideologies of repentence for those barbarities. Movements against racism, ethnocentrism, colonialism, imperialism, neocolonialism, neoimperialism, etc. are all based on the works of westerners.
I don't find the comparision more than superficially attractive. Notice that in each case, the underlying sin is also a product of the Modern (European) Age. As such, each is a radically unique product of a radically unique phenomenon without parallel in any civilization in world history. The history of modern Western civilization (1789 to present, unlike that of any era in any civilization, is in a real sense a history of societies, polities, and economies in constant turmoil and flux, of a civilization struggling to comphrend that which itself and what exactly it "created".
347. jexster - 9/21/2002 2:12:58 PM
How else can you explain George Bush?
348. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 4:29:51 PM
Message # 334
You acknowledged earlier that you felt Hanson was not terribly knowledgeable about the non-western cultures in those chapters after the classical period. I think precisely the same thing about the whole book, including the classical period. I think you give him the benefit of the doubt because he's a classical historian (even though his specialty is classical agronomy) and classical historians supposedly know about ancient Persia. Well, I can't remember what he listed for his bibliography on Salamis and Gaugamela, but his descriptions of Achaemenid Persia drew, almost exclusively it seemed, from Olmstead. And Olmstead is to ancient Persian studies as Jowett is to classical studies.
Hanson's bibliography -- which almost certainly is not exhaustive -- doesn't have anything more recent than the late 1980s for Persia alone, but a couple recent of works for Greek-Persian cultural relations. You can judge for yourself the quality:
There are a number of fine studies of the Achaemenids that draw on Persian sources in addition to Greek literature. See H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, Achaemenid History I: Sources, Structures, and Synthesis (Leiden, 1987); J. Boardman et al., eds., The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edition, Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525 to 479 (Cambridge, 1988); J.M. Cook, The Persian Empire (New York, 1983); M. Dandamaev, A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire (Leiden, 1989); and A.T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, Achaemenid Period (Chicago, 1948)continued ...
349. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 4:30:50 PM
There are several more books on Greek-Persian cultural relations, including two dated from 1997. In the next chapter (Gaugamela), Hanson writes:
General Persian sources are discussed under the prior chapter devoted to Salamis, but there are a few works specific to the later Achaemenid era, and especially to Darius III. See, for example, E. Herzfield The Persian Empire (Wiesbaden, 1968); A. Stein, Old Routes of Western Iran: Narrative of an Archaelogical Journey (New York, 1969); and a revisionist view, P. Briant, Histoire de l'empire perse (Paris, 1996).This may not be the best of the most recent material on Persia and the Achaemenids, but it appears that Hanson is relying on more than just a fifty-year old source (Olmstead).
350. PincherMartin - 9/21/2002 4:52:40 PM
Message # 335
I thought I only took Hanson to task. And I don't understand your comparison. Who are you comparing Hanson with?
I was responding to what you wrote in Message # 276: Everything we know about the Graeco-Persian wars comes from a handful of Greek authors. I don't know how reliable the numbers, whether of casualties or order of battle, truly are.
This complaint about the paucity of sources in Ancient history is common and could be said about any number of other areas from our knowledge of the deep sea to our species' evolutionary history.
I was surprised when reading Philip Caputo's Ghosts of Tsavo recently how little we know about lions in general (the book is about the lions found in the East African region of Tsavo, made famous by the movie "The Ghost and the Darkness"). You would think we would know a lot about such a popular keystone species, but it appears that even basic knowledge about, say, how many species of lions there are in Africa or whether they live in caves, is in serious dispute by the experts. And I'm not talking about disputes prolonged by scholarly-inclined cranks.
Still, we organize what we know about these areas as best we can, make some provisional guesses as to what the facts we currently have in hand mean, and award the best and most creative guesses with our faddish attention.
Is Hanson weaving a lot of interpretation around very few facts about these battles in the ancient world. Yes, undoubtably. But then so does every other ancient scholar ballsy enough to make a hypothesis about what the very few facts he has collected in his area of study might mean.
351. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 10:41:30 PM
Message # 344: "Mexican immigration to the U.S. is a recent phenonmenon of the last three decades."
I believe there have been waves of migrant episodes from Mexico, but you're right that the current wave has lasted for 25-30 years. And there is a reason for this wave: it coincides with the collapse of the Mexican economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mexico's economy had been growing very rapidly between 1950 and 1980. But today Mexico's per capita GDP is still lower today than it was in 1980.
352. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 10:42:06 PM
Message # 338: The Dark Ages are traditionally depicted as an aftermath of the collapse of civilisation in western Europe, an era in which cities, literacy, learning, roads, infrastructure, and civil society disappeared or declined to primitive levels. This exclusively negative view has been challenged in recent years by those who stress the positive intellectual role of monasticism and the effects of the "Carolingian renaissance". But the revisionism has not gone so far as to reinterpret the late classical and early mediaeval periods as an era whose principal problem is largely that we moderns don't know much about it, as you seem to think. Doesn't Hanson try to depict the Dark Ages not merely as something which wasn't as bad as it had been made out to be traditionally, but as one in which the classical tradition was essentially uninterrupted? Doesn't he talk about property, freedom, egalitarianism and even "consensual government" in the Dark Ages? That is the impression I got from reading C&C when it first came out.
353. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 10:44:39 PM
Message # 339: "He does say the Western-educated populations that ruled in North Africa and the Middle East, which the Arabs replaced, were small and insignificant compared to the local indigenous populations there."
And that's nonsense. At the time of the Arab conquest, the Middle East and Egypt had been part of the classical world for 1000 years. But let's leave the ME and Egypt aside for a moment, and consider only Iberia, North Africa and Gaul.
When the Arabs arrived on the scene, all three North Africa, Iberia and Gaul were ruled by Germanic barbarians, none of whom were "westernised" (i.e., "having adopted Graeco-Roman culture"), whereas the indigenous populations were.
Moreover, the indigenous populations in Iberia and North Africa had been part of the Roman empire much earlier than than the indigenous population of Gaul. They had also been exposed to Hellenism before the Roman conquest, through Greek settlements and trading, whereas Gaul had never been influenced by Hellenism before Julius Caesar conquered it. Finally, parts of Iberia and North Africa had returned to Byzantine control for a while, unlike Gaul.
Therefore, the idea that the population of Frankish Gaul was somehow more western than those of Iberia and North Africa, is silly. If anything, Frankish Gaul was much less "western" (i.e., influenced by Graeco-Roman culture) than Vandal North Africa or Visigothic Iberia, not to mention Byzantine Egypt and Syria.
354. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 10:45:46 PM
"Given the Arabs high ideological motivation and the geographical suitability of horse warfare to the steppes and deserts of those regions, Hanson argues it's no surprise these sparsely-populated Western elites there could be overrun."
Earlier I forgot to address Hanson's point about the desert. Frankly either I don't recall why Hanson thought the desert made the Arab conquests so damned easy, or he didn't really explain it. All the same, the point is weak. It's not as though Byzantine Egypt and Syria were minor city-states built around lonely, isolated oases in the desert which were vulnerable to sudden attack and encirclement by highly mobile armies. (That would be a better description of Achaemenid Persia.) The desert surely facilitated the mobility of Arab armies from place to place but what advantage would it have given them once they arrived in the fertile valleys of Lower Egypt or the Syrian coast? As for North Africa, Carthage may be surrounded by desert but the former Roman provinces of Mauretania and Numidia (approximately where Morocco and coastal Algeria are located today) are either fertile valleys or mountains. And the desert explanation flatly fails with Iberia.
(Many people have argued that the Arab armies were unable to advance north beyond Iberia not by any military acumen on the part of the people in Dark Age France, but by the Pyrenees.)
By the way, how does Hanson know that the two armies were approximately of equal size?
355. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 10:51:11 PM
Message # 340: No. Hanson does not address my point about Frankish Gaul. As I said, Frankish Gaul wa not more "western" than Vandal North Africa or Visigothic Iberia. I remember being amazed at Hanson's elevation of the Franks and contempt for the Visigoths -- even though the Visigoths and the Franks were basically the same fucking people. And I also could not understand why Hanson thought the indigenous population of Dark Age Gaul so much more "classicised" than the indigenous populations of what had been the heartland of the Roman empire and the Hellenistic world.
Message # 348 & Message # 349: Thanks for posting that bibliography. Richard Frye, who is the author-editor of the Cambridge History, has a bibliographic essay in another book of his, Heritage of Persia, which discusses the evolution of western scholarship about ancient Mesopotamia and Iran. That evolution is clearly not reflected in Hanson's chapters on Gaugamela and Salamis, which give a decidedly Olmsteadian description. In fact I believe Hanson singles out Olmstead in the Salamis chapter as a key source of his. The chapters left me with the impression that he based his description of Achaemenid Persia primarily on Olmstead, and he either just listed some other random books on ancient Iran/Mesopotamia in the bibliography for show, or did read them but ignored them because he arbitrarily preferred the Olsmsteadian picture.
356. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 10:54:31 PM
:I think Hanson is (or was) a creative scholar and not just a partisan hack with a flair for writing. I base this opinion on all of the books of his I've read rather than just Carnage and Culture, but I don't think C&C is as bad and misleading as you do."
I think Culture and Carnage is a hack job which ideologises and politicises history every bit as the far-left academic scum that Hanson is given to criticising in his columns. In fact C&C is what I would expect if Concerned wrote a history book. (But as I said before his chapters on Cannae and Lepanto weren't bad -- even if I can think of some bad things to say about those chapters as well.) I haven't read Hanson's other books so I can't comment on the author in general.
"Unfortunately, Hanson has followed the trail blazed by Paul Krugman, and we can probably expect nothing of scholarly quality from him in the future."
I find this comparison bizarre, because Krugman has continued to make significant contributions to academic economics even as he has become more and more associated in the popular imagination with his press columns.
357. PincherMartin - 9/22/2002 2:19:14 AM
PE --
I am sending an e-mail to Hanson summarizing some of your objections to his book (I will also link to -- or copy and paste --your main arguments). Some of your points, such as your objection as to why Hanson says the Arabs easily swept across North Africa, I can't answer, but I would like to read what Hanson has to say about them.
I find this comparison bizarre, because Krugman has continued to make significant contributions to academic economics even as he has become more and more associated in the popular imagination with his press columns.
To be fair, Hanson may be continuing his scholarly work as well. All things being equal, however, writing a column as well as books for the masses, should cut significantly into the time available for one's scholarly work.
358. jexster - 9/22/2002 4:27:36 AM
Shroeder, Shroeder Uber Moron
Das Lied Der Deutschland
1. Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brüderlich zusammenhält,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt. :|
2. Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang
Sollen in der Welt behalten
Ihren alten schönen Klang,
Uns zu edler Tat begeistern
Unser ganzes Leben lang.
|: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang. :|
3. Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach laßt uns alle streben
Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
Sind des Glückes Unterpfand.
|: Blüh' im Glanze dieses Glückes,
Blühe, deutsches Vaterland. :|
Its the world against Bush & Blair J Chirac, M. Le President
359. PelleNilsson - 9/22/2002 8:18:58 AM
Georgia joins agribusiness show in Havana
Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvin will open the U.S. Food and Agribusiness Exhibition in Havana on Sept. 26, along with Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura and seven other state agriculture chiefs.
Is the embargo withering away?
360. alistairconnor - 9/22/2002 1:49:36 PM
Message # 353 They had also been exposed to Hellenism before the Roman conquest, through Greek settlements and trading, whereas Gaul had never been influenced by Hellenism before Julius Caesar conquered it.
I agree with the main thrust of your argument, but you're overstating the case here. The Greek cities of southern Gaul (Marseille and Arles in particular) predate the Roman conquest by several centuries, and trade and cultural influences between Gaul and the Hellenic and Roman spheres were well-established.
361. alistairconnor - 9/22/2002 1:54:24 PM
... by the way, Pseud, what languages did the North Africans speak at the time of the Arab conquest? Apart from Berber? This should give a reasonable idea of the extent of their romanisation...
362. alistairconnor - 9/22/2002 2:18:33 PM
Message # 344 If land borders are an obvious influence then why wasn't Mexico an important source of immigration until recently? [...]
but immigration to the U.S. from the Philippines is recent (as is all immigration to the U.S. from non-white countries)
I think we're onto something here...
Can it be that the US had a racist immigration policy until recently? That was certainly true of New Zealand and Australia.
In any case, the main reasons for tolerating large-scale immigration from poorer countries is... you want cheap labour.
So: why did the US choose this path, and why did Canada not choose it? That, I believe, is the crux of the difference in their respective immigration policies. Probably Canada is more egalitarian in ethos; perhaps the US made a deliberate choice to keep a downward pressure on wage costs and undermine union influence. That was certainly true in France over the same period.
And referring to Vietnam as a U.S. colony is goofy Marxist talk.
Whatever. It's just shorthand, not politically motivated in the context. For immigrants from a poor country, it doesn't actually matter whether their country of origin is a colony, a protectorate, or an ally of the host nation. It changes nothing from the sociological, cultural or economic point of view. They are there because the relationships exist.
363. PelleNilsson - 9/22/2002 9:27:37 PM
Those interested in historians and historiography are advised that Eric Hobsbawm has published his autobiography An Interesting Times - a Twentieth-century Life.
(This is an Economist review, unfortunately it is subscription only)
In the reviewer's opinion it is a ruthlessly honest self-investigative book in which this eminent Marxist historian, born in the year of the October revolution of 1917, tries his best to understand and to explain why he is “a lifelong communist”.
But, as the Economist notes, You can be wrong in politics without being a fool or a scoundrel.
364. pseudoerasmus - 9/22/2002 9:31:28 PM
One correction: the North Africa that was conquered by the Arabs had not been under Vandal rule, as I previously stated, but under Byzantine rule. North Africa had reverted to the Byzantine empire after the destruction of the Vandal kingdom by Belisarius more than a century before the Arab conquest.
Message # 357: "Some of your points, such as your objection as to why Hanson says the Arabs easily swept across North Africa..."
I think the traditional explanation is the best in this case: the Arabs swept into Byzantine Syria, Egypt and North Africa because their populations were eager to escape Byzantine religious persecutions and were disloyal to Constantinople. At the time of the Arab conquest, Christianity was riven by sectarian conflicts: Arianism reigned in Iberia, Donatism in North Africa and varieties of monophysitism in Egypt and Syria-Palestine. (It's more complicated than that but the first half millennium of Christianity is full of splits and countersplits.)
365. pseudoerasmus - 9/22/2002 9:34:17 PM
Message # 360: "The Greek cities of southern Gaul (Marseille and Arles in particular) predate the Roman conquest by several centuries, and trade and cultural influences between Gaul and the Hellenic and Roman spheres were well-established."
No.
The "Gaul" that you are talking about is what the Romans called Gallia Narbonensis. The Gaul that is pertinent to the discussion here -- i.e., the one occupied by Franks in late antiquity and early middle ages, the modern location of Tour and Poitiers where the Arabs were defeated by Charles Martel -- is what the Romans called Gallia Comata.
The Romans originally conceived of Gaul as having two parts: Gallia Cisalpina, land on the hither side of the Alps which is today part of Italy; and Gallia Transalpina, land on the farther side of the Alps, comprising what are today France, Belgium and parts of Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
Cisalpine Gaul became part of the Roman empire in the 200s BC.
The particular piece of Transalpine Gaul that contained such Greek city-states as Massilia and Tolosa and that is today known as Provence in southern France, became part of Rome a century later. When the Greek colonies were threatened by Celtic tribes from the north, they became Roman protectorates. Later, Rome annexed them and named them Gallia Narbonensis.
What Julius Caesar famously conquered a century later was the remainder of Transalpine Gaul that the Romans named Gallia Comata when Narbonese Gaul was made administratively separate in recognition of the fact that its inhabitants were not barbarians unlike the inhabitants of the rest of Transalpine Gaul.
Hellenism clearly had reached Gallia Narbonensis long before Roman annexation, but there is no reason to think the same had happened for Gallia Comata, which was pretty savage according Caesar.
366. pseudoerasmus - 9/22/2002 9:37:31 PM
Message # 361: "by the way, Pseud, what languages did the North Africans speak at the time of the Arab conquest?"
Latin, Berber and Punic.
"This should give a reasonable idea of the extent of their romanisation.."
We have evidence for Gaulish being spoken in France and Italy until the late 5th century AD, and we also have evidence for Punic being spoken in Roman Carthage (what is today Tunisia and Libya) until about the same time. We can be sure that Latin was ascendant in Roman Gaul because the languages which took hold in Gaul after the collapse of the Roman state were derived from Latin. But what about Punic? It was also on the wane by the 4th century AD. This we infer from various things, including from the fact that St Augustine, a Christian bishop in Roman Carthage, often spoke about having to translate Punic proverbs into Latin because most of his parishioners couldn't understand Punic. Since Christians in Augustine's time were still largely lower-class, we might infer from this that Latin had penetrated all levels of society in Roman Carthage.
The Berber languages survived because of their mountainous habitation. But there are many Latin borrowings attested in various modern Berber languages. Moreover, the population of the Roman provinces of Numidia and Mauretania contained a large number of settlers from elsewhere in the Roman empire, including Jews. Most of these likely spoke Latin; and these were the ones probably to be first Arabised after the Arab conquest.
But I think the biggest indicator of Romanisation at the end of the western empire was the dominance of Christianity. North Africa was among the most resolutely Christian parts of the Roman empire, and I believe Berbers were predominantly Christian at the time of the Arab conquest.
367. PelleNilsson - 9/22/2002 9:41:23 PM
This probably doesn't belong here, but what the hell. Reading on in the Economist, I find that Stephen Pinker has released a new book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.
(This review is supposed to be non-subscription)
Here Pinker moves beyod The Language Instinct where he claimed that language is a hard-wired ability common to all humans, and that to learn a language (as a child) is a matter of setting mental switches to adapt that ability to fit the language in question:
[...] many more of our emotional biases and mental aptitudes than previously thought are hard-wired or, to use the old word, innate. Further, because humans are genetically speaking a fairly homogeneous species, people the world over are more alike in deep ways that matter than may appear from superficial differences of culture. The book ends with a startling list of more than 300 so-called human universals published originally by Donald Brown in 1991 including not only the presence everywhere of childbirth rites, incest taboos and beliefs about death—we expect that—but, more surprisingly, the existence in all societies of, for example, repertories of facial expression for a few basic emotions that do not themselves vary from culture to culture.
The implications of this statement and its position in the current debate is dealt with in the review.
368. transient1a - 9/22/2002 10:30:15 PM
From: New Statesman, September 16, 2002
Eric Hobsbawm explains why he is a "lifelong communist".
By the way, the shit has hit the fan:
In Nature vs. Nurture, a Voice for Nature
A determined effort to break this silence and make it safer for biologists to discuss what they know about the genetics of human nature has now been begun by Dr. Steven Pinker, a psychologist of language at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In a book being published by Viking at the end of this month, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature," he seeks to create greater political elbow room for those engaged in the study of the ways genes shape human behavior. "If I am an advocate, it is for discoveries about human nature that have been ignored or suppressed in modern discussions of human affairs," he writes.
A principal theme of Dr. Pinker's argument is that the blank slaters — the critics of sociobiology and their many adherents in the social sciences — have sought to base the political ideals of equal rights and equal opportunity on a false biological premise: that all human minds are equal because they are equally blank, equally free of innate, genetically shaped, abilities and behaviors.
Also see:
Innate Social Behaviors
Interestingly, many physical scientists sympathic to communism thought that it would succeed or fail based on its response to genetics. It failed with Lysenkism. Now it the West's turn at bat.
I wonder.
Message # 367
PelleNillson,
Weird.
Since I just was going to post the above.
369. sakonige - 9/22/2002 11:04:03 PM
Message # 367
Thanks for bringing this review to our attention, Pelle. I'd like to toss your link into a heated discussion on the same subject on another messageboard.
370. alistairconnor - 9/22/2002 11:04:52 PM
Serendipitous association, Hogsbawme and Pinker.
Though communism seems to me to be not so much based on the assumption of a clean slate, as on an over-estimation of man's innate, hard-wired goodness.
I'm looking forward to reading the Pinker.
371. sakonige - 9/22/2002 11:07:14 PM
Thanks also to you, transient1a.
372. transient1a - 9/23/2002 1:31:16 AM
Message # 370
alistairconnor,
Well maybe, but I think that John Gray sums up the usually accepted position:
The belief that there is no such thing as human nature has come to be the core dogma of radical humanism. Marxists and feminists, left egalitarians and right-wing libertarians may disagree violently about a great many things, but they are at one in insisting that humans are categorically different from all other animals. The needs and capacities of tigers and gorillas are biologically given, their possibilities narrowly limited; but humans can transcend their animal origins and live as they choose. Marx gave a canonical formulation of this view when he declared that there is no human essence, only a changing ensemble of social relations; but it is by no means confined to Marx and his disciples. Jean-Paul Sartre in his existentialist days, Ortega y Gasset and the Tory philosopher Michael Oakeshott all shared this humanist creed, each of these (otherwise very different) thinkers writing that man has no nature, only a history. The denial of human nature spans many philosophies and all political parties, but it is most adamant on the left. It is not hard to see why. Human nature is a stumbling block to believers in progress. If humans are like other animals, they cannot be expected suddenly to change their ways. Science may yield new forms of knowledge and new technologies, governments and economic systems may change, sometimes for the better, but the basic traits of human behaviour will remain the same. Even the most revolutionary transformation of society will leave human needs and motives much as they have always been.
373. transient1a - 9/23/2002 1:31:56 AM
sakonige,
You may be interested that you can see all of the reviews of Pinker's book from this:
Pinker's Index of Reviews
374. sakonige - 9/23/2002 2:00:09 AM
wow, I guess that will keep me going for a while. Thanks again.
I'm looking forward to reading the book and following discussions of it. Many of the ideas expressed in the summaries I've read so far have long seemed self-evident to me, even though they are considered controversial.
375. alistairconnor - 9/23/2002 10:25:21 AM
That's exactly what I like about Pinker : his scientific rehabilitation of the intuitively obvious.
I'm continually astonished at the lack of subtlety of people's belief systems.
From Gray's summary of left-wing thought :Human nature is a stumbling block to believers in progress. If humans are like other animals, they cannot be expected suddenly to change their ways.
That's just plain stupid. "Human nature", hard-wired in our brains, gives us, among other things, a huge capacity to experiment, to take chances, to learn from others, to change our ways of behaving and of thinking. This is the stuff that distinguishes us from the other animals, and has made us such an extraordinarily adaptable species.
Faith-based political doctrines don't like confronting reality. Communism failed because it was in contradiction with human nature. But the lesson I draw from all this is that we need both freedom (to allow the better side of human nature to express itself) and civilisation (to restrain the worse sides), and that it is necessary to fight the "libertarian right", which encourages the free expression of both.
376. transient1a - 9/24/2002 2:37:43 AM
Message # 375
alistairconnor,
Sounds good.
I guess that is why only in excess of 185 million died in wars in the 20th century.
AND
Of course, ancient Greek democracy did not survive because it was faith based. Whereas the US democracy was specifically engineered not to be faith based because its underpinnings were designed to face reality.
AND
The good side of human nature is surely good; while the worse sides are just worse. So by freeing the good and restraining the worse, humanity will be able to fully express its potential.
OH
And let's fight for what is right -- as opposed to what is wrong.
It is all intuitively obvious.
WELL
That about covers:
What's wrong with the world? Can it be fixed? How?
This forum can now rest in peace.
377. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2002 5:23:28 PM
Milosevic is fighting all the way, now advancing a breathtaking theory:
THE HAGUE, Netherlands -- Mercenaries directed by Bosnia's Muslim leaders and French spies carried out the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in a plot to make the world hate the Serbs, Slobodan Milosevic told the U.N. war crimes tribunal.
Full CNN article
This is of course an important contribution to the Serbian war myth that is under construction.
378. Wombat - 9/26/2002 8:10:38 PM
Jeez, that makes the Arab world's explanations for the role that Israel and the US play in their region sound positively level-headed.
379. Andonly - 9/28/2002 5:38:23 PM
"Post 297 is quite shallow, more than a bit confused, and occasionally contradictory. However, it is somewhat informed, which is a great and welcome contrast to Andonly's totally inane readings. Frankly, the very small amount she's posted on India contains such ridiculousness that I don't even want to read a word more on the matter."
? I have not posted anything "on India." Margarinespanks evidently has been obsessing to the point of dreaming about me.
380. Andonly - 9/28/2002 5:48:51 PM
But now that I've followed Spanks' link I've stumbled on an instance of such idiocy on the part of his hero Srinivasan as should require no comment:
In addition, I have the nagging feeling that the Semitic religions were created for a place and time far away and long ago: the harsh conditions of the West Asian desert two thousand or fifteen hundred years ago. It was a world of absolutes and of dicta -- if you did not follow certain simple rules, the ruthless desert would consume you. Hence the exclusivist dogmatism, and their jealous, unforgiving, Olympian deities. Marxism too, though more recent, fits into this Semitic mindset. India today -- and all through history -- is altogether different. Pluralistic, diverse, India has always had to deal with those who question authority.
381. stostosto - 10/3/2002 12:35:07 PM
Hey all
No account from Pelle on the high drama of Swedish politics? Persson ostensibly retained his parliamentary majority, but then the environmental party refused to play sweet demanded government seats in return for parliamentary support and and threatened switching sides.
Also, there's the peculiar candid camera episode pertaining to an exchange on the Swedish debate climate on immigrants that we had upthread. Needless to say, this has confirmed the prevailing view here that the issue is being suppressed in Swedish public discourse.
It involved a TV journalist interviewing a number of campaigning politicians about immigrants. On camera they said all the correct and high-minded things. Off-camera, however, many of them expressed views ranging from highly critical to outright hostile. The snag was, the camera wasn't off...
382. sakonige - 10/3/2002 5:27:48 PM
Steven Pinker's book is available now. Amazon just sent me a copy.
383. concerned - 10/4/2002 7:53:21 AM
British Told by UN to end Law allowing spanking children
Perhaps the British should tell the UN to fuck off. The practice will probably come in handy in the future.
384. ronski - 10/5/2002 4:38:10 PM
I see the gay, socialist mayor of Paris has been stabbed, but will recover.
That is much better than what happened to Pim Fortuyn, of course.
385. TabouliJones - 10/6/2002 5:39:10 PM
Here is a review of Pinker's book, from The Globe and Mail (temporary link).
386. stostosto - 10/6/2002 5:46:08 PM
ronski
do you think Pim Fortuyn was killed because he was gay? I saw Andrew Sullivan imply that at his website, but I haven't seen that conjecture being made elsewhere. Rather, it has been presented as a leftie-greenie extremist attack on a perceived right wing extremist.
387. stostosto - 10/6/2002 5:48:43 PM
Incidentally, Jörg Haider is rumoured to be gay also.
388. Andonly - 10/6/2002 5:48:51 PM
Message # 383
I think the US, England, and Somalia should form an alliance to spank every employee of the United Nations.
Certain UN apparatchiks could be spanked repeatedly, using long boards embedded with nails.
389. ronski - 10/6/2002 5:57:05 PM
sto,
No, actually I don't think that, but I'm not certain about it either, one way or the other. I think Fortuyn's killer's motives, if they were at all rational, were based on some leftwing politics. But I also think the killer could have been influenced by some subtle homophobia.
I think it much more likely Delanoe's attacker may have been motivated by homophobia, personal and/or cultural. But he also is reportedly a thief and a drug addict, so again it is hard to say why he did it. Some people are just plain nuts.
All in all, a nasty little spate of violence in Europe.
Meanwhile, our own spate of violence in the D.C. area is getting nastier and nastier. More people are suspecting international terrorism from my reading of blogs this morning, but I think it is more likely the right-wing domestic variety, like Oklahoma City.
390. ronski - 10/6/2002 5:58:00 PM
If Haider is gay, my guess he is the self-hating variety (see Pike's thread).
391. concerned - 10/6/2002 6:01:47 PM
Doesn't he have a brother, Self Haider?
I couldn't resist.
392. concerned - 10/6/2002 6:07:07 PM
Re. 384 -
The attacker is a 'devout' Muslim who says he hates politicians and gays.
393. concerned - 10/6/2002 6:08:26 PM
The Left and Muslims - speaking of funny bedfellows.
394. concerned - 10/6/2002 6:13:15 PM
I have a suspicion that the increasing influence of Muslims in Europe will effectively force gays back into the closet there, irrespective of ideological affiliation.
395. marjoribanks - 10/6/2002 11:49:18 PM
In Indian news, there has been an amusing and strenuous repudiation of the Vatican by the government of West Bengal.
As commented on in this thread a good while ago, the Vatican and the doddering Pope is in an unholy rush to canonize Mother Teresa. The hope was that she could be sainted in time for the Pope's trip to Asia in 2000, but it was set back for a variety of political reasons. Still, she was so-to-speak pre-certified and the process awaits the requisite two miracles. Last week, voila, one miracle was declared established.
Only trouble is, the woman in question appears to have been cured by state medical care. And so the Bengali commies (who do, by the way, greatly revere Mother Teresa's charitable acts - she had this particular gov't wrapped around her little finger) are saying that it's all bunk.
Story.
396. marjoribanks - 10/7/2002 12:00:16 AM
Haider is quite openly gay, if I recall the details of that Bild expose a couple of years ago.
397. marjoribanks - 10/7/2002 12:54:10 AM
I think the Montgomery Co. sniper is almost certainly a home grown rightwinger. I find that the current political atmosphere in these USA is emboldening these scum for several reasons.
One big one is that there is far more tolerance than usual for hatespeech and its attendant ignorance and bigotries, witness the proliferation of such even in a relatively insulated place as this website. There was a time when the cartoonishly stupid would hesitate to proclaim their nonsense in the open, now they will babble on as though their IQ's somehow went up when the twin towers came down.
Another is the rampant paranoia about terrorists within, which is actually being encouraged by the likes of Ashcroft. This paranoia sometimes spills over into hysteria, and hysteria feeds the rightwing scum.
Yet another reason is all this talk about extreme violence and vengeance and pre-emptive actions emanating from the government. Such endless propaganda, emitted at the highest volumes from the highest pulpits in this land breeds violence internally as well.
A final reason, one which I explored in the early days after 9/11 on this site is that the rightwinger scum are chagrined that a bunch of Arabs could pull off widespread terror while they're mostly still stuck shooting rats and screwing their underage nieces in filthy rural compounds. They want theirs, this shooting spree is almost certainly sign of something like that.
398. ronski - 10/7/2002 2:57:28 AM
I can't find any suggestion that Haider is openly homosexual.
Secretly dallying with 15-year-old Slovak boys, maybe.
399. PincherMartin - 10/7/2002 4:15:53 AM
Marjori Banks --
You're a fucking dickhead.
I think the Montgomery Co. sniper is almost certainly a home grown rightwinger. I find that the current political atmosphere in these USA is emboldening these scum for several reasons.
The sniper's actions appear completely random so unless you've heard something to the contrary, he would appear to be just a wingnut with a gun. There is no political agenda whatsoever in his actions. He could as well be an anarchist, a right-winger, or an Arab, along with about half-a-dozen other possible types.
How you figure him to be a "rightwinger", let alone motivated by the "current political atmosphere" -- whatever that's suppose to mean -- is not explained by the trash you write below.
One big one is that there is far more tolerance than usual for hatespeech and its attendant ignorance and bigotries, witness the proliferation of such even in a relatively insulated place as this website. There was a time when the cartoonishly stupid would hesitate to proclaim their nonsense in the open, now they will babble on as though their IQ's somehow went up when the twin towers came down.
Don't be shy, Marj. Who in particular here at The Mote are you talking about? Since this kind of hate is responsible for the killings, you should share with us whoever is responsible for helping to spread this murder.
400. PincherMartin - 10/7/2002 4:16:19 AM
Another is the rampant paranoia about terrorists within, which is actually being encouraged by the likes of Ashcroft. This paranoia sometimes spills over into hysteria, and hysteria feeds the rightwing scum.
Rampant paranoia about terrorists within? Gee, I wonder how Americans ever began to worry about terrorists within?
Yet another reason is all this talk about extreme violence and vengeance and pre-emptive actions emanating from the government. Such endless propaganda, emitted at the highest volumes from the highest pulpits in this land breeds violence internally as well.
But, of course, here's your point! It's George Bush who's responsible for the murders. All this talk about preemptive action against Iraq (which you initially supported, by the way) is feeding into some guy killing people at random in greater Washington D.C. area.
By the way, do you have any fucking evidence whatsoever for you slurs and innuendo? Any evidence linking war talk to a rise in hate crimes, for example? Anything, that is, apart from your own unreliable and dumbass predictions you've made in the past?
401. PincherMartin - 10/7/2002 4:35:28 AM
Unlike MarjoriBanks, I have not the slightest clue who is behind the shootings and I've followed them closely. In fact, when the news about them first broke, I assumed it was just a gun nut or ex-military guy playing God. I still believe this is probably the case.
But it could be any number of possibilities, including international terrorists. The shootings are random with the only commonality that they are all based around the greater Washington D.C. area. That they are based near Washington could be for political reasons (both for a right-winger and for an Arab terrorist) but the selection of targets appears too random to strongly support this theory. They are old and young, black and white, and the locations they were shot range from schools to gas stations to the front yards of homes.
So it's extremly silly for Marj to speculate that the killings are 1) being perpetrated by right-wingers and then 2) assume this is because of the current government's rhetoric on Iraq. Why should any right-winger give a fuck about Iraq? And if this killer doesn't have a political agenda, then why call him a right-winger?
402. marjoribanks - 10/7/2002 2:42:31 PM
Yawn. PMS needs to learn to read, and also needs to stop pulling his pud in public.
403. ronski - 10/7/2002 2:44:10 PM
Re: Message # 394 --
I don't think gays will be forced back into the closet in Europe, or anywhere in the West. And beyond the West, they're mostly still in the closet.
404. Andonly - 10/7/2002 5:46:01 PM
Pincher: "...but the selection of targets appears too random to strongly support this theory. They are old and young, black and white, and the locations they were shot range from schools to gas stations to the front yards of homes."
But the randomness of the killings doesn't suggest to me that his having an agenda would be less likely. How much less randomly targeted are the Israeli victims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Or Fatah, for that matter?
If his objective is to terrify Americans, to make them fearful of going outside their homes (just as Israelis are), this guy is succeeding.
The fact that he's apparently a sharpshooter does suggest he may have had specialized military training. If indeed he has a political agenda, I wonder if he thinks he's setting an example for others similarly persuaded.
405. Andonly - 10/7/2002 5:47:48 PM
I should have said "a political or religious agenda...".
406. concerned - 10/7/2002 5:54:32 PM
I see marjoribunk is back, fulminating about the US RW without a shred of evidence, in the International thread, yet.
407. concerned - 10/7/2002 6:10:55 PM
Come back to Africa, Blacks Urged. We Anti-Racists are kicking out the remaining whites and creating a socialist paradise.
excerpt:
Black activists and lawyers at the forum also vowed during meetings to bring lawsuits against Britain, France, Belgium, Germany and Spain for the slave trade.
Little problem here with the fact that Belgium didn't exist as a nation until 1830, nor did Germany until 1871, so that neither government could have had much, if anything, to do with the slave trade. However, Turkey did, as the Ottoman Empire, and Saudi Arabia, as the Arab 'homeland' was an identifiable geographic entity more greatly responsible than any other non-African nation for the slave trade, yet neither appears to be likely to be named in any lawsuit.
Alternatively, it is strange that no lawsuits or other significant actions are threatened for the currently culpable parties regarding slavery in Mauritania or the Sudan.
So, it appears that Muslims effectively get a pass on owning black slaves, in the opinions of Sub Saharan Africans.
To exclude whites from a conference which ostensibly is intended to end racism completely defeats the purpose of such a conference, since that is a racist act in and of itself.
Finally, it is grotesque that Mugabe's land 'redistribution' program, which is destroying Zimbabwe's agricultural base and will result in famine or starvation for millions of Zimbabweans, was praised at this conference.
408. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2002 8:21:13 PM
From concerned's link:
The conference also unanimously condemned slavery in the African countries of Mauritania and Sudan. Mauritanian Bakary Tandia, co-chairman of the New Jersey-based Africa Peace Tour lobbying group, introduced the resolution.
Arabs in Mauritania and Sudan held blacks against their will, Mr Tandia said. Up to 900,000 black Mauritanians, mostly women and children, worked without pay as domestic servants and herders.
The resolution calls on the two countries to enforce existing anti-slavery laws or pass new ones.
Do you actually read your sources concerned, or do you just pick them up at some rightwing site and link them into here?
409. concerned - 10/7/2002 8:35:25 PM
Pelle -
Did you even read my post where I specified that mere lip service alone was inadequate to the point of hypocrisy wrt these African nations which I specified by name in my post?
Or is it that you are deliberately misconstruing what I posted?
410. concerned - 10/7/2002 8:37:31 PM
Why not try responding to the substance of my post which is perfectly consistent internally and to the point rather than make swipes and indulge in innuendo?
411. concerned - 10/7/2002 8:55:22 PM
412. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2002 9:20:29 PM
You wrote
Alternatively, it is strange that no lawsuits or other significant actions are threatened for the currently culpable parties regarding slavery in Mauritania or the Sudan.
I showed that you are wrong about that by quoting your own source. Where are the swipes and the innuendo?
Whom, exactly, do you refer to by "some people here" in your last post? Who are the admirers of Mugabe in the Mote?
413. concerned - 10/7/2002 9:35:17 PM
Pelle -
I regard a 'resolution condemning slavery' as only lip service, in the final analysis. Such words are cheap, which is my point.
414. concerned - 10/7/2002 9:36:39 PM
One may disagree with my take, but I look at the likely effect of this resolution which is probably nothing, effectively.
415. concerned - 10/7/2002 9:39:02 PM
I submit that the groups who are responsible for African slavery will hold this resolution in contempt, IOW.
416. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 9:45:30 PM
Message # 407: "Alternatively, it is strange that no lawsuits or other significant actions are threatened for the currently culpable parties regarding slavery in Mauritania or the Sudan."
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that winning a lawsuit against Sudan or Mauretania is like winning a $100 million settlement against a vagabond?
"Little problem here with the fact that Belgium didn't exist as a nation until 1830, nor did Germany until 1871, so that neither government could have had much, if anything, to do with the slave trade. However, Turkey did, as the Ottoman Empire, and Saudi Arabia, as the Arab 'homeland' was an identifiable geographic entity....."
Firstly, the Ottoman empire got its slaves from Europe.
Secondly, If you can argue that the Turkish republic represents the Ottoman empire and Saudi Arabia any Arab entity any time in the past, then surely one can say Belgium and Germany represent entities which preceded the formal existence of those current states. Besides, the German state of 1871 is a direct continuation of the Prussian state, and the Belgian state is derived from the Netherlands. The lines of state succession for Belgium and Germany are comparable for the line of succession for the Turkish Republic, and all three are far more direct and continuous than for Saudi Arabia, which really had no state predecessor of any kind.
By the way, if there is a currently existing state in the Arab world most responsible for the Arab slave trade, then it is Oman, which was intimately involved in the slave trade and had colonies in East Africa to process them.
417. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 9:49:00 PM
Just providing some information:
From the 7th century to the late 19th century, it is estimated that a total of 15 million black Africans were transported as slaves to the Muslim world.
Between 1500 and 1890, a period roughly contemporaneous with the transatlantic trade, the number was between 8-9 million.
In the same time period (1500-1980), the number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic varies from 9 to 12 million.
Source: Bernard Etémad, ‘L’ampleur de la traité négrière, VII-XIXème siècles: un état de la question’, Bulletin du Département d’Histoire Economique, University of Geneva, No. 20, 1989-90.
418. Andonly - 10/7/2002 10:13:58 PM
"In the same time period (1500-1980), the number of Africans shipped across the Atlantic varies from 9 to 12 million."
Yes, but Ronald Reagan ended the practice. The US has not imported any slaves since 1980.
419. concerned - 10/8/2002 12:52:35 AM
Which part(s) of Mexico, South or Central America received slaves after 1865 (although I understand Mexico had outlawed slavery prior to that time)?
420. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 2:01:12 AM
Brazil
421. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 2:01:24 AM
and Cuba.
422. Andonly - 10/8/2002 11:01:44 PM
Pincher: "In fact, when the news about them first broke, I assumed it was just a gun nut or ex-military guy playing God."
AP report: "ROCKVILLE, Md. (Oct. 9) - A tarot card with the words, ''Dear policeman, I am God'' was found near a bullet casing outside the school where a 13-year-old boy was critically wounded, a person familiar with the investigation said Wednesday."
423. Andonly - 10/8/2002 11:04:02 PM
Has anyone read the new Samantha Power book, "A Problem from Hell"? Someone just sent me a copy.
So far it's absorbing, if exceedingly depressing.
424. concerned - 10/8/2002 11:04:59 PM
I don't know that much practice is required to fire a rifle accurately. I've only fired a real gun once in my life, but I was able to nail a squirrel on a tree limb (It had moved into my attic) with a cheap air rifle I just bought at 60 feet on the second shot.
425. Wombat - 10/8/2002 11:08:35 PM
Beginner's luck?
426. concerned - 10/8/2002 11:12:17 PM
Well, it had a cheap scope on it. I bought it to shoot varmints, after all.
427. PincherMartin - 10/9/2002 5:57:36 AM
Hi Andonly --
But the randomness of the killings doesn't suggest to me that his having an agenda would be less likely. How much less randomly targeted are the Israeli victims of Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Or Fatah, for that matter?
Those killings aren't random at all. All Israelis are targets as Israel itself is illegitimate to those groups.
But the difference -- at least when I made the comment a few days ago, before this small bit of evidence came to light -- is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad both often take credit for their work. Except for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, so usually does Al Qaeda.
Right-wingers also usually pick targets that have political significance. When an abortion clinic is bombed, it's pretty easy to guess who's behind it. If the IRS was bombed, a la McViegh-style, speculation that focused on a right-winger would at least have some basis.
What was the basis for Marj's speculation that he then used for a political attack on Bush and Ashcroft that also was unfounded? It's one thing to engage in unfounded speculation; it's another to then use this unfounded speculation for a political attack that is also unfounded for a reason that is unprovable.
If his objective is to terrify Americans, to make them fearful of going outside their homes (just as Israelis are), this guy is succeeding.
Yes, he is. And for that reason, I left open the possibility that he was a terrorist, either Arab or right-wing. Despite the new evidence, I still leave it somewhat open.
428. Andonly - 10/10/2002 4:27:39 AM
"But the difference -- at least when I made the comment a few days ago, before this small bit of evidence came to light -- is that Hamas and Islamic Jihad both often take credit for their work. Except for the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, so usually does Al Qaeda."
I thought the Cole and Khobar Towers bombings have also been attributed to al Qaeda. In neither case did it take credit.
"Right-wingers also usually pick targets that have political significance."
Yes, I agree. It is exactly for this reason that Spanks' gurglings well deserved their comeuppance.
"I left open the possibility that he was a terrorist, either Arab or right-wing. Despite the new evidence, I still leave it somewhat open."
Oh, that won't do. You must have a brave countercultural opinion inspired by post-Communist internationalism. Nothing short of this will convince the Mahatma of Jersey City of your deep moral rectitude.
Now, I don't want to be judged harshly for not knowing yet who the sniper is. Therefore I will advance a theory: he is petty machine hack Robert Torricelli, who was provoked to psychotic violence when he learned that his arch-nemesis Frank Lautenberg will replace him on the Democratic ticket when New Jerseyans go to vote for senators in November.
Either that, or it's a woman.
429. PincherMartin - 10/10/2002 1:07:19 PM
I thought the Cole and Khobar Towers bombings have also been attributed to al Qaeda. In neither case did it take credit.
I'm not sure if Al Qaeda took credit for the Cole bombing or not, but I think they did.
But the Khobar bombing was most likely done by Saudi Shias with backing from Iran, not by Al Qaeda.
430. PincherMartin - 10/10/2002 1:10:51 PM
At this stage in the game, I'm not sure what Al Qaeda has to gain by not revealing that they are behind the sniper attacks. It's not like we're going to go easy on them if they aren't behind them.
431. Fielding - 10/10/2002 3:45:22 PM
Pseudoerasmus (and others) would be very interested in a piece in this week's New Yorker on the Uighers.
432. Wombat - 10/10/2002 4:24:23 PM
It was an interesting article.
433. marjoribanks - 10/10/2002 5:35:59 PM
Also in this week's New Yorker is this excellent article by Bombay boy Fareed Zakaria.
In fact, I'd like to see if it can be used to initiate some discussion here on the involved matters.
434. marjoribanks - 10/10/2002 5:39:37 PM
I'm taking the liberty of excerpting the entire concluding four paras:
America can uphold the international system by itself. That would certainly give it the most freedom of action. But America is not an imperial power. A country that will not provide security fifty miles outside Kabul—one year after September 11th—is not going to take on the burdens of intervention, occupation, and nation-building in crisis after crisis around the world. And why should it, when there is another way? So far, we have handed these "imperial" missions over to the very allies and organizations—the international community—of which we are often so skeptical. Today, there are roughly as many non-American as American troops in Afghanistan, and most of the costs of Balkan reconstruction have been borne by the European Union. In the past five years, the United Nations has engaged in nation-building in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Cambodia, and parts of Africa, and has done better than anyone might have expected. When the international system is given help from America—most crucially, in the establishment of peace and order—it can work surprisingly well. The Bush Administration is right to recognize that consensus is not an end in itself. And some American concerns about international organizations are valid. Within these organizations, America faces a special challenge: the United States has only one vote in most international organizations, and when other countries want to gang up on it they use these organizations to do so. But these are the kinds of problems that skillful diplomacy can resolve.
435. marjoribanks - 10/10/2002 5:40:02 PM
Working to a greater extent through allies and organizations would also make the United States more secure. This week we may snub Germany, but next week we will need its help in arresting suspects and shutting down bank accounts. We will need information from foreign governments on goods shipped from all over the world to insure that something dangerous—say, enriched uranium—does not sail into New York Harbor. In fact, the only sustained protection against the threat of terrorism will come from a new global process of customs and immigration controls which checks people and cargo around the world, using the same standards and sharing databases—in other words, a new international organization. Otherwise, America's borders will become the choke point of global traffic—something that would be bad for the economy as well as for the society. As important, American hegemony would gain the legitimacy that comes from operating through an international consensus.
Without this cloak of respectability, America will face a growing hostility around the world. During the Cold War, many nations disliked or disagreed with America—over Vietnam, for example—but they despised the Soviet Union. The enemy of their enemy was, in the end, their friend. But today, with no alternative ideology and no competitors, America stands alone in the world. Everyone else sits in its shadow. This doesn't mean that other countries will form military alliances against America; that would be pointless. But countries will obstruct American purposes whenever and in whatever way they can, and the pursuit of American interests will have to be undertaken through coercion rather than consensus. Anti-Americanism will become the global language of political protest—the default ideology of opposition—unifying the world's discontents and malcontents, some of whom, as we have discovered, can be very dangerous.
436. marjoribanks - 10/10/2002 5:40:29 PM
"It is better to be feared than loved," Machiavelli wrote. But he was wrong. The Soviet Union was feared by its allies; the United States was loved, or, at least, liked. Look who's still around. America has transformed the world with its power but also with its ideals. When China's pro-democracy protesters gathered in Tiananmen Square, they built a makeshift figure that suggested the Statue of Liberty, not an F-16. America remains the universal nation, the country people across the world believe should speak for universal values. Its image may not be as benign as Americans think, but it is, in the end, better than the alternatives. That is what has made America's awesome power tolerable to the world for so long. The belief that America is different is its ultimate source of strength. If we mobilize all our awesome powers and lose this one, we will have hegemony—but will it be worth having?
437. concerned - 10/10/2002 5:41:42 PM
Nobel Peace Prize Worth Less than Usual this Year, if Possible
438. marjoribanks - 10/10/2002 5:48:19 PM
I must say (with some parochial Bombay pride in the mix) that our man, Fareed Zakaria is undoubtedly one of the finest foreign policy brains in evidence in this country, even anywhere in the Anglophone world.
439. marjoribanks - 10/10/2002 5:49:44 PM
Carter richly deserves the commendation. This year alone, in slapping away the Bushite nonsense about Cubans and weapons of mass destruction, he showed his statesmanship.
440. stostosto - 10/10/2002 6:00:32 PM
Rustler,
I sent you a hastily composed testimonial. Let me know if it's too, um, revealing of you. For your purpose, I mean. Also, I can think of several things I might have added.
441. stostosto - 10/10/2002 6:01:36 PM
Oops. Wrong thread.
442. concerned - 10/10/2002 6:18:48 PM
Re. 439 -
Regardless of how much Carter deserves the Peace Prize, such spurious admonitions of current administration policy by the Nobel Committee while awarding it diminishes both the committee and the meaning of the prize itself. But, then again, we are talking about an organization which has demonstrated the bad judgment in the past of awarding this prize to such as Arafat.
443. PelleNilsson - 10/10/2002 6:51:58 PM
And to such as the war criminal Kissinger.
But I agree that it was extraordinarily stupid of the Committee. Norwegians can be like that sometimes.
444. Fielding - 10/10/2002 7:25:58 PM
1. Carter deserves the acclaim. It is hard to quantify "peace", so it is hard to say whether Carter was most deserving, but he is certainly a worthy choice.
2. The comments by the head of the Nobel Committee are ridiculous, and diminish the award.
3. The fact that Carter wins the peace prize does not mean that he was a successful President. His accomplishments are typically under-appreciated, but he failed as a leader.
4. Does Pelle now argue that Kissinger was more of a war criminal than (or even comparable to) Arafat?
445. Wombat - 10/10/2002 7:29:35 PM
I think Pelle was being ironic. The Nobel committee does award the Peace Prize to some rather warlike people, though, starting with Teddy Roosevelt.
446. pseudoerasmus - 10/10/2002 7:30:43 PM
Someone once observed that Thomas Jefferson was the "pre-president" and Jimmy Carter the best "post-president".
447. pseudoerasmus - 10/10/2002 7:31:07 PM
errata: the BEST "pre-president"
448. Andonly - 10/10/2002 7:49:55 PM
Although Spanks is in fact a dickhead, I have to agree wholeheartedly with his Message # 438.
Anyone with a copy of the NYer in hand should also take a look at Hendrik Hertzberg's editorial. It's brilliantly lucid and makes a good companion to the Zakaria piece.
"America's borders will become the choke point of global traffic—something that would be bad for the economy as well as for the society."
It has occurred to me that something like this may be what al Qaeda was alluding to this week when its threats to hit America again included the claim that it intended to destroy the US economy. It may not be that hard, especially given the shape of the stock market lately. I figure one major shipping port on the east coast and one on the west ought to fuck us over quite seriously.
Think about it--repair of damage, implementation of increased security, insurance compensations, delays holding up goods in transit, the cost of re-routing... Consider how much the economy been losing per diem on account of a mere dockworker's strike.
449. Andonly - 10/10/2002 7:51:52 PM
...has been losing. I didn't mean to lapse into Ebonics.
450. PelleNilsson - 10/10/2002 8:26:03 PM
Wombat
Right.
451. TabouliJones - 10/10/2002 9:50:14 PM
I have read the Hertzberg and Zakaria pieces, both of which are insightful. I need to read them again, and intend to do so once my copy of the issue dries (there was a bath tub incident). So, I don't feel confident discussing the details of either at this moment, save to offer kudos and general agreement with the central argument in favour of working through international organizations to achieve the foreign policy goals of peace and stability as well as democratic and economic reform in regions of the world that are home to volatility and dangerous antipathy towards the U.S.
452. stostosto - 10/11/2002 10:46:23 AM
marj
That Twain quote is delightful. I am big fan of Mark Twain.
And how cool that your grandfather memorised it!
453. wonkers2 - 10/11/2002 2:46:09 PM
Carter is an exemplary man and "post-president." He clearly deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Gunnar Berge would have done well to keep his big mouth shut and not used Carter's award to take a cheap shot at Bush. (However much he richly deserves it.)
454. marjoribanks - 10/11/2002 2:52:18 PM
Sto,
That grandfather, my favorite, was given to such stuff. And he roped me in too.
At the age of five, he had me memorize Jawaharlal Nehru's 'tryst with destiny' speech from 1947 and trotted me out in front of various visiting dignitaries to recite it.
"Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially. At the stroke of midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, then an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity......"
At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled with her striving and the grandeur of her successes and her failures. Through good and ill fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again.
455. marjoribanks - 10/11/2002 2:52:50 PM
And so on.
456. marjoribanks - 10/11/2002 3:53:07 PM
IANS
CARTERPURI: "Our" Jimmy Carter winning the Nobel peace prize was an occasion to rejoice for this dusty village about 30 km from the Capital.
A quintessential Haryana village replete with mooing buffaloes, hookahs, men who speak in a baritone drawl and women in veils, Carterpuri remembers with fondness the things the former U.S. president did when he visited it 24 years ago.
As village postmaster Kartar Singh, 63, succinctly put it: "It is good someone from our village has won the Nobel."
It was on January 3, 1978, that Jimmy Carter, the then U.S. president, accompanied by his wife Roselyn, walked in here with then prime minister Morarji Desai and spent almost an hour chatting with the villagers.
Carter had a special reason for visiting the village. His mother Lillian had spent some years here till 1947 in the mansion of a jail official, Mohammad Farz, while working as a missionary.
It was the then chief minister of Haryana, Devi Lal, who proposed that the village's name be changed to Carterpuri from Daulatpur Naserabad.
457. marjoribanks - 10/11/2002 3:56:41 PM
On a dull riverfront morning, with little to alleviate the weather's gloom, I have to tell you all that I derive great pleasure from Postmaster Kartar Singh's typical comment.
That and the fact that India thrashed the West Indies in the first test match.
458. transient1a - 10/11/2002 6:01:48 PM
Mankind's place in the universe hangs in the balance
Mankind has waited five long years for revenge. Now the time has come.
Manama, in the Kingdom of Bahrain, is the place -- and mankind's revenge seems inevitable.
459. wabbit - 10/11/2002 9:14:12 PM
Irv left just in time...I hope his family is safe.
Reports from the Indonesian holiday island of Bali say at least 14 people have been killed in a two explosions.
460. PelleNilsson - 10/11/2002 9:18:02 PM
I think Irv's (ex)family lives in Djakarta.
461. PelleNilsson - 10/11/2002 9:18:49 PM
Kramnik leads Deep FritZ 3-1.
462. Andonly - 10/12/2002 2:36:06 AM
Go Kramnik.
I taught my son to play chess when he was four. He joined his elementary school's chess club when he was in kindergarten. Now he's six and I can no longer beat him.
I'm convinced it's a fine outlet for his natural aggressive streak.
463. Andonly - 10/12/2002 2:43:33 AM
Wabbit, your article has the death toll at 53. Sounds like fucking al Qaeda.
Irv's Indonesian ISP was out of Denpasar. Last time I heard, he was supposedly in Canada. I didn't know his ex-wife and family are now in Jakarta.
What happened with Irv, anyway? Why did he divorce and leave Indonesia?
464. Andonly - 10/12/2002 2:54:12 AM
Hey, I just noticed something. The bombing of the Bali nightclub was about 800 feet from an American consulate. Meanwhile, yesterday in Israel:
A security guard at a Tel Aviv beachfront cafe averted a major terror attack Friday night, when he spotted the would-be bomber, chased him and, with the help of guards from the nearby U.S. Embassy, prevented him from detonating the explosive vest he was wearing.
Shortly before 8:30 P.M., the terrorist - a West Bank resident in his twenties - made his way to the Herbert Samuel promenade in Tel Aviv, intending to blow himself up using the 10-kilogram device strapped to his body. To maximize the effect of the bomb, it was packed with homemade explosives, shrapnel and metal bolts. The identity of the terrorist and all details of the investigation are the subject of a gag order.
The target of the suicide mission was the Tayelet Cafe, which is adjacent to the U.S. Embassy complex, said Tel Aviv police spokeswoman, Shlomit Herzberg.
The bombing in Bali was presumably not done by Palestinians. What do you want to bet the Palestinian attempted-bombing in Israel was coordinated with al Qaeda?
465. wabbit - 10/12/2002 2:59:04 AM
Ando,
Yes, I've been following the news and watching the tally increase. I suppose Irv divorced for the same reason(s) any of us do. I don't like to ask people for details, I figure if they want me to know, they will tell me. Of course, that sometimes makes it look like I don't care, which isn't the case. Alas. I knew his ex-wife had stayed in Jakarta, but I am uncertain about the two children. I thought his son had also returned to Jakarta, but I don't know about his daughter. Also, I don't know where BGPelaire (an honest-to-god sweetheart) is these days. He was also in Bali, last I knew. I haven't heard from Irv in ages.
466. Cellar Door - 10/12/2002 6:40:37 PM
BG gave me a "Bali" T- shirt. It's my favorite.
467. Cellar Door - 10/12/2002 6:44:53 PM
468. concerned - 10/13/2002 9:52:15 PM
Cleric demands death for three US Protestant pastors
Since this effectively amounts to a call from the Iranian Government to assassinate prominent US citizens, it would seem to constitute an act of war.
Personally, I think the US should use its influence to force each Muslim Middle Eastern Government to institute laws requiring the mandatory imprisonment or death upon conviction for parties responsible for issuing fatwas calling for the death or other unlawful harm to foreigners.
469. wonkers2 - 10/13/2002 9:59:49 PM
And what would you suggest for Ari Fleischer? Or Ariel Sharon? American and Israeli fatwas are okay, but not Islamic fatwahs?
470. concerned - 10/13/2002 11:28:56 PM
Wonkers -
Does that mean you are opposed to separation of church and state?
471. Cellar Door - 10/13/2002 11:38:30 PM
I have always been for the separation of church and state.
As well as the separation of Jerry Falwell's head from his neck.
472. wonkers2 - 10/14/2002 12:59:49 AM
Concerned--No. I must be dense. I don't get your point???
Kindly distinguish Ari Fleischer's recent call for the assassination of Sadaam Hussein and/or Sharon's assassinations of Palestinians from "a call from the Iranian government to assassinate prominent American citizens"?
473. concerned - 10/14/2002 1:07:54 AM
Re. 472 -
Simple. The US government is not religously influenced, whereas the Iranian government is its polar opposite in this regard. Since you are attempting to equate the motives of the two in a manner extremely prejudicial to the US by discounting any pernicious effects due to the influence of fundamental Islam, I'm asking if you are effectively promoting the Iranian government model.
474. wonkers2 - 10/14/2002 1:20:52 AM
I just heard Salman Rushdie interviewed on the Lehrer News Hour. Very intelligent man. He said a couple of interesting things, one of which was counter-intuitive to me. Although expressing concern about Al Qaida, he said that Islamic fundamentalism may have peaked and begun to decline in many countries after 9-11 and the successful U.S. campaign in Afghanistan. He said the U.S. rout of the Taliban and Al Qaida is causing young Arabs in many countries to have second thoughts about their dedication to fundamentalist Islamic causes such as al Qaida, suicide bombings and the like. The obvious joy of the people of Afghanistan upon the ouster of the Taliban is a sign that Islamic fundamentalism has declined there as well as in Iran where public sentiment is rising against the mullahs. The same for Algeria and other countries which have suffered the depredations of Islamic fundamentalism.
Rushdie likened fundamentalism's relationship to Islam to the relationship of fundamentalism to mainstream Christianity. Mainstream Islam doesn't buy extremism as mainstream Christians don't buy protestant fundamentalism. He was quite critical of Saudi Arabia for allowing free reign to fundamentalists there for fund raising and the establishment of madrassas in Saudi Arabia and around the world. He didn't say it, but I suspect that he believes that Saudi Arabia is a greater source of mischief for the West than Iraq.
Rushdie's second main point is that he is greatly worried about growing anti-American sentiment around the world, in the Muslim countries and also among the European left. He attributes growing anti-Americanism in Europe to our growing unilateralism, and Bush's breaking or refusal to sign on for a number multilateral treaties. To overcome anti-American sentiment and to counter al Qaida, the United States must learn to act more in concert with our allies.
475. wonkers2 - 10/14/2002 2:01:33 PM
"The U.S. government isn't religiously influenced??" Give us a break!
476. jexster - 10/14/2002 9:35:08 PM
Free market fundies, christian fundies, and Crawford Clowns are running this country into the ground.
Don't tell Ariel Sharon that Jerry Falwell is running US mideast policy. He might laugh so hard that last night's lox ends up on your face.
477. jexster - 10/14/2002 9:39:08 PM
Bali proves that America's war on terror isn't working
The US made the mistake of taking its eye off the main target
The world has every right to feel angry. Not just with the perpetrators of the Saturday night massacre in Bali, but with the governments who vowed to wage a "war on terror" which would make attacks like it less likely.
478. jexster - 10/14/2002 9:47:32 PM
Bali has proved why that is a woeful error. A war on Iraq will win yet more backing for jihadism in the Muslim world, apparently concerning all Bin Laden's most lurid predictions of a clash of west against Islam. A prolonged US occupation of Iraq will be the greatest provocation yet. But it will also be a distraction from the struggle we were all urged to join a year ago. Bali has proved what Clinton argued a fortnight ago: that radical Islamism remains the "most pressing" threat in the world today. Clinton gets that. The only question is, does Tony Blair?
And if he does, is he telling George W Bush?
GWB get it? That's not a question is it?
479. PincherMartin - 10/15/2002 4:06:48 AM
The world has every right to feel angry. Not just with the perpetrators of the Saturday night massacre in Bali, but with the governments who vowed to wage a "war on terror" which would make attacks like it less likely.
Maybe the Guardian hasn't figured it out yet, but Jakarta was not an avid participant in the war on terror. It ignored warnings from not only the U.S., but several other countries as well. Please tell me how it would possible for the U.S. to have got Jakarta's attention when some in the government there said quite plainly to bugger off.
Rather than demonstrating that the war on terror is a failure, Bali might show that it is making headway. The terrorists are reduced from primarily attacking the U.S. (and its closet allies) to mostly attacking Western targets in friendly Muslim countries: Indonesia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan etc.
480. Andonly - 10/15/2002 5:03:23 PM
In private correspondence I said yesterday that I thought it wouldn't be long before al Qaeda's abettors in Europe started blaming the US for the Bali attack. And lo, here's the very thing I expected, from Blue Ear Forum:
10/16/2002
Thomas Sowell wrote, in a column quoted on Blue Ear by Randy Mott:
"Very few of those killed in Bali were Americans. What had all the Australians, Swedes, etc., done in the Middle East to provoke such terrorism against innocent tourists?"
Probably, I guess, because our governments didn't protest against the brutal slaughters of innocents that the US comitted in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world.
Now a lot innocent people in the west also are going to be sacrified, because of the stupidities of profit-seeking war-mongerers.
Gunnar Thorell Stockholm
I don't know. Maybe we've set our sights on the wrong folks. Maybe it's Sweden we should flatten. (Sorry, Pelle. Time to relocate.)
So in that spirit I'm taking submissions for a list of future European pancakes, to be submitted to the Security Council. We'll also need Congressional approval, I suppose; oh, life and death are so complicated.
Let's start with:
1. Sweden; and of course,
2. France
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
481. Andonly - 10/15/2002 5:09:57 PM
"The terrorists are reduced from primarily attacking the U.S. (and its closet allies) to mostly attacking Western targets in friendly Muslim countries: Indonesia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan etc."
hat's pretty much what I said to my husband while we were watching the news last night. They hit Bali because they could.
By the way, I am almost certain Osama bin Laden is dead, comatose, or otherwise irrelevant now. I think we need to watch the movements of Hizballah and al Qaeda as they organize more tightly with Hamas et al.
I'm surprised no one in the media has noticed the apparent similarity between the failed club bombing near Tel Aviv and the Bali bombing.
482. thoughtful - 10/15/2002 5:24:09 PM
Not spamming, but I found this so interesting I thought I'd share it here as well as in amer. politics.
Most insightful reading on the role of America in world events as envisioned by the Bush administration by Hertzberg at the New Yorker:
"The key phrase in the Bush document, judging by the number of times it is repeated (five), is "a balance of power that favors freedom." The authors do not define it, except by implication. The usual definition of a balance of power ("a state of peace that results when rival nations are equally powerful and therefore have no good reason to wage war," according to E. D. Hirsch, Jr.,'s "New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy," an impeccably conservative source) is certainly not what they have in mind, since they also write, "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." An overwhelming preponderance of power, not a static balance, is more like it."
483. PincherMartin - 10/15/2002 6:22:55 PM
I'm surprised no one in the media has noticed the apparent similarity between the failed club bombing near Tel Aviv and the Bali bombing.
I didn't read anything on the attempted bombing in Tel Aviv. What are the similarities?
484. sakonige - 10/15/2002 6:40:49 PM
pseudoerasmus,
I see you lurking around with the warmongers over there after your embarrassingly racist outburst the other day.
485. Andonly - 10/15/2002 6:54:28 PM
"I didn't read anything on the attempted bombing in Tel Aviv. What are the similarities?"
See my
The two attacks took place a day apart, and both targeted nightclubs adjacent to a US consulate or embassy.
I don't know if the Israeli gag order concerning the terrorist the Israelis caught is still in effect, but it struck me as curious.
486. Andonly - 10/15/2002 6:56:31 PM
Pincher, see my Message # 464
487. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2002 7:05:03 PM
Andonly
You cannot do this to us after all we did for you during the cold war. We refurbished our air bases so they could receive American bombers. We rigged our communications system so we could keep in touch with NATO command. That we probably shot up one of your submarines in 1981 was just one of those things.
488. Andonly - 10/15/2002 8:38:24 PM
"That we probably shot up one of your submarines in 1981 was just one of those things."
Yes, I know, everybody does it.
Look. You just take care of this Gunnar Thorell rube, keep Hans Blix firmly in line, shut up about international law and all that, and recite "God Bless America" thrice daily, the way Hasidim daven mincha, maariv, and shacharit.
Then we'll talk.
489. stostosto - 10/16/2002 9:20:58 PM
Yandl On:
I taught my son to play chess when he was four. He joined his elementary school's chess club when he was in kindergarten. Now he's six and I can no longer beat him.
You say this as if it's a natural thing. But I've never known a kid who played chess at the age of four, that's only something you read about in chronicles of grand masters like Capablanca or something. Don't you think he is a genius, or is that sort of thing the normal state of things in your family?
I'm convinced it's a fine outlet for his natural aggressive streak.
I wonder how that might be. Seems to me that would require an almost inhuman ability to sublimate.
490. alistairconnor - 10/17/2002 4:48:13 PM
Come come Sto, the boy is Jewish. They wrote the book on child genius. And on sublimation.
491. Edmund Dantes - 10/17/2002 4:58:09 PM
That we probably shot up one of your submarines in 1981 was just one of those things.
To what does this refer? I've never heard of such an incident. The Swedes shot up an American sub?
492. glendajean - 10/17/2002 5:09:08 PM
In the Atlantic Monthly website, there has been for the past several weeks, an interview with a Pennsylvania professor who wrote an article in the magazine on the demographics and future of Christianity around the world.
One of his comments stuck out. In talking about religion in America, he said that it is sometimes said that the Swedes are the least religious people in the world and that the Indians (from the subcontinent) are the most religious. He said that America was a country where the elites running the show are Swedes and the masses are mostly Indians. He was unsure why it works like that here, but thought it was working at least for now.
493. charleselliot - 10/17/2002 5:42:43 PM
I thought an interesting thing about the argument after the Bali bombing was the lack of discussion about East Timor. Australians led the international effort (both rhetorically and militarily) in favor of Timorese independence. This was an effort by Western powers to split up the Indonesian state AND an effort by Christian powers to roll back Dar-el-Islam. That is to say that it struck exactly at the intersection of the most deeply held beliefs of the nationalist Indonesisan military AND Islamicists. Two years later Islamicists kill 100 Australians using military explosives and it seems to be in no one's interest to say that the two might be connected. Why is that?
The reason is that the right wants to make an enemy of Al-Quaeda and the left wants to make an ally. The right wants to say that Islamicists hate Australia because they hate a free civilized country. This has the advantage of justifying any response and eliminating any need to discuss the right or wrong of any other interventions in Muslim countries. The left wants to say that the attacks are the ultimate result of interventions or other policies they disagree with and project these deaths as a Romantic revenge for disagreeing with their current line.
494. concerned - 10/17/2002 7:12:21 PM
Re. 493 -
FWIW, I agree with this post, as far as it goes.
495. concerned - 10/17/2002 7:23:56 PM
Well, I'll draw an exception to my last statement.
This has the advantage of justifying any response and eliminating any need to discuss the right or wrong of any other interventions in Muslim countries.
...is incorrect and far, far too simplistic. The Bush Administration, for instance, in its efforts to proactively resolve issues of instability, is busy ensuring that, both with the Congress and the UN Security Council that a unified plan of action is developed wrt the war on terrorism, an approach which is inarguably much more sophisticated than the unilateralist tendencies of the x42 administration.
Rather, it is the Leftist tendency to offer little but pro forma responses until an existence threatening crisis emerges that promotes strife and limits options.
496. jexster - 10/17/2002 7:44:27 PM
"U.S. Says Pakistan Gave Technology to North Korea" Reuters
497. jexster - 10/17/2002 7:47:53 PM
In point of fact, not chickhawk doublesquawk, there is nothing remotely "sophisticated" about Bush's unilateralism, a unilateralism he specifically with great flourish disclaimed in the 2000 Presidential debate #2. In point of fact, not chickhawk doublesquawk, Clinton was a model of multilateralism certainly compared to the radical right ultranationalism of the Bush Administration that has more in common with the Pan German League than anything else
498. PelleNilsson - 10/17/2002 8:38:52 PM
Edmund
In the years around 1980 we had problems with foreign submarine incursions into Swedish waters, in particular in the Stockholm archipelago. At the time it was thought that it was Warsaw pact vessels, nosing around to test the defences, a hypothesis that was reinforced when a Soviet Whisky class boat complete with nuclear weapons ran aground outside a major naval base south of Stockholm.
The 1981 incident ocurred after Sweden, being tired of all this, announced a shoot-to-kill policy. A submarine was detected in the waters off Stocholm. A mine was detonated and the boat was obviously damaged (oil slicks, emergency colour markings), But despite being a sitting duck it was allowed to limp out.
In the 20 years since then, sources have revealed that NATO, too, sent submarines into Swedish waters to check up on our defence. A couple of military historians have recently built a fairly convincing, but far from conclusive, case that the 1981 sub was, in fact, American.
499. PelleNilsson - 10/17/2002 9:06:07 PM
charleselliot
Two years later Islamicists kill 100 Australians using military explosives and it seems to be in no one's interest to say that the two might be connected.
Why two years later and not much earlier? Why has nobody claimed responsibility?
500. concerned - 10/17/2002 10:57:38 PM
Re. 497 -
Funny. In eight years, I don't recall any instances of the WH Rapist obtaining Congressional or UN approval for any of his multiple foreign military interventions.
And Leftists claim that is 'multilaterism'. It really was a form of despotism.
501. concerned - 10/17/2002 11:00:53 PM
Well, there was one exception. Bosnia. GWB has already done much better than that, however, in less than two years.
502. concerned - 10/17/2002 11:07:16 PM
IAC, Bosnia, not to mention Kosovo, were absolute clusterfucks. Given a choice between who should have been hung out to dry in the Balkans, of course the Lefties made the wrong one.
503. Andonly - 10/18/2002 3:21:47 AM
Otsotsots:
"You say this as if it's a natural thing. ...Don't you think he is a genius, or is that sort of thing the normal state of things in your family?"
My son is precocious, reads about a year above grade level, and has a remarkable memory. He's a very good abstract/symbolic thinker, likes math, and has unusual powers of concentration. But I don't know if he's a "genius."
It is true that he was the youngest kid in his school's chess club last year. We had to ask for an exception for him to be let in since the club was supposed to be open to third graders (8-yr olds) and up. But who knows, maybe some of the other kids in the club also had been playing since before kindergarten?
As to whether this sort of thing is normal in my family... probably, in one way and another. My father was similarly precocious in certain areas (chiefly music, memorization), and he and my son closely resemble one another temperamentally. My grandfather was an autodidact and a writer. I was considered a bright or "gifted" child, whatever that means. (I think it means that if you learn to read before the age of nine in Texas, you're exceptional.) My husband--who is half German, half Scot/English, and not at all Jewish, Alistair--is a well employed biologist and highly regarded in his arcane field; his father is a physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator; his uncles are all professionals in the sciences, medicine, and/or music.
Add it up...
I taught my son chess because he had evinced a rabid interest in games and I knew he was able to memorize abstract spatial things. But I have to say he took to it a little more readily than I expected.
At first he was a very bad loser. We had to sort of hold him down and yell at him (so he could hear over the sound of his tantrum) that most children his age cannot play chess at all, let alone sustain a game for an hour before losing to a forty-two year old adult.
504. transient1a - 10/18/2002 5:37:41 PM
pseudoerasmus,
Message # 10123
(And you started the argument about proper nouns, not me.)
You are terminally confused.
You stated:
Message # 547
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case. The noun lah simply means "god" and is cognate to the Hebrew el. Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name at all but simply the common noun preceded by a definite article ("the god").
where, as I assume you must know, ‘proper name’ is simply the alternative designation for ‘proper noun’
505. transient1a - 10/18/2002 5:38:36 PM
Ouch.
Wrong forum.
506. pseudoerasmus - 10/18/2002 8:30:24 PM
Message # 502: "IAC, Bosnia, not to mention Kosovo, were absolute clusterfucks. Given a choice between who should have been hung out to dry in the Balkans, of course the Lefties made the wrong one."
(1) The USA barely intervened in Bosnia, militarily speaking. Maybe a handful of missiles were fired once by aircraft against Bosnian Serb positions.
(2) The Bosnians are completely secular, as are the Albanians, who are a mix of Muslims and Christians anyway.
(3) The "Lefties" -- if you mean real lefties and not what would be called "liberals" in the USA -- hysterically opposed NATO intervention in Kosovo. By the way, did not the Republicans in the US House of Representatives sponsor a bill to arm the KLA ?
507. PelleNilsson - 10/18/2002 8:59:33 PM
The USA barely intervened in Bosnia, militarily speaking. Maybe a handful of missiles were fired once by aircraft against Bosnian Serb positions.
NATO aircraft took out the communications system, notably the microwave towers, which meant that the Serbs lost their command and control capabilities.
I was one of the guys who designed a replacement to be paid for by the EU.
508. Fielding - 10/18/2002 9:06:45 PM
By "lefties", concerned means everyone to the left of Jesse Helms.
509. wonkers2 - 10/18/2002 11:58:39 PM
My youngest son didn't play chess but he did amazing things in math at an early age-such as adding up the grocery bill in his head at the checkout counter when he was young enough to still be riding in the cart. My wife is a math teacher, and she played math and other mind games with our children in their pre and early school years. After a disagreement with his AP calculus teacher, my mathematical son dropped the course and taught himself enough calculus to max the AP test and the Math SAT. Now he's a programmer at Microsoft. He's also a killer poker player and supported himself playing poker for a year after graduating from college. His precocity came from his mother's side of the family. He has, on occasion, expressed doubt as to his paternity!
510. concerned - 10/19/2002 8:11:41 AM
Wrt, 'Lefties' in 502, I was speaking primarily of the run of the Euro and UN establishment.
511. concerned - 10/19/2002 8:16:01 AM
Family values in Albania - x42's buddies:
Albanian police arrest father for selling his four daughters ($400US for the bunch)
AP World Politics
Albanian police arrest father for selling his four children
Mon Sep 16,10:36 AM ET
TIRANA, Albania - Albanian police have arrested a man suspected of selling his four daughters, a police official said Monday.
Agron Myrtezaj, 33, is accused of selling the children, ranging in age from a few days to one year, for between 40,000 leks (dlrs 280) and 55,000 leks (dlrs 400), a police officer insisting on anonymity said. Police arrested Myrtezaj on Sunday in the eastern town of Pogradec 140 kilometers (85 miles) east of Tirana, the Albanian capital.
The sales allegedly took place over three years starting in 1999.
The police officer said the children were sold to people in Pogradec and nearby places. One of the buyers was a Greek citizen.
Police a few days ago arrested a couple in Korce for allegedly selling at least two children. Another Albanian couple was recently arrested by the Italian police for trafficking at least 36 children.
Korce police are investigating whether an international ring of child traffickers could be operating in the area.
Police sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said those buying children often kill them to harvest and sell their organs.
Albania is one of Europe's poorest countries.
512. concerned - 10/19/2002 10:10:10 AM
From the NYT, more Muslim family values:
In Europe, Sex Slavery Is Thriving Despite Raids
By DAVID BINDER
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — An intensive European operation conducted with American assistance to crack down on the trafficking of women for the sex trade has had mixed success, American officials say.
Preliminary data show that in 20,558 raids conducted from Sept. 7 to Sept. 16 across Central and Eastern Europe, 237 victims of trafficking were identified and 293 traffickers were arrested and charged as criminals.
But little was done in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the focus of the operation because it is considered a center for international prostitution and sexual slavery as well as a major transit point to northern Europe. National and international police officers made just 71 raids on Bosnian nightclubs, hotels and other locations during the September operation and arrested seven trafficking suspects.
"We are gratified by what was accomplished by some of the participating countries, but are less satisfied with others who should have been more involved," said John F. Markey, a United States customs agent who directs law enforcement assistance programs in the State Department.
Regionally and globally, the problem is huge. Trafficked women from poor regions of Ukraine, Romania, Moldova and other Central and Eastern European countries have been turning up in the United States as well — in Miami, New York, Los Angeles and even Anchorage.
The International Organization for Migration, an offshoot of the United Nations, estimates that 700,000 women are transported, mostly involuntarily, over international borders each year for the sex trade. As many as 200,000 are taken to or through the Balkans.
513. concerned - 10/19/2002 10:10:39 AM
The September operation was conducted by the transborder crime center of the Southeast European Cooperative Initiative in Bucharest, Romania, bringing together regional law enforcement agencies. The center receives considerable assistance from the United States Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Secret Service. The crime center is directed by Brig. Gen. Ferenc Banfi of Hungary, and the antitrafficking task force is led by a Romanian, Col. Gabriel Sotirescu.
In addition to Bosnia, the operation enlisted the assistance of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine.
The operation focused on Bosnia because, since the war there ended seven years ago, the presence of thousands of NATO troops and civilian workers for the United Nations and aid agencies has made it a prime market for both prostitution and sexual slavery, officials said.
Over the past two years, both NATO soldiers and United Nations officials, including some Americans, have been implicated in the exploitation of young women held in sexual bondage.
Because of its porous borders — only about 40 of its 432 official border crossings are guarded — Bosnia is also a major transit country for trafficked women, narcotics and contraband being sent to Northern Europe.
On Thursday, the United Nations Mission in Sarajevo dismissed 11 Bosnian police officers, including members of the antitrafficking squad, after they were apprehended visiting brothels and abusing prostitutes. One has been sentenced by a Bosnian court to a month's imprisonment, the mission announced.
514. concerned - 10/19/2002 10:11:00 AM
By contrast, Bulgaria posted large numbers during the September operation: in 2,079 individual raids, 258 people were identified as traffickers and 64 women as trafficking victims. Some of the women were taken to shelters run by private groups.
Romania reported 2,597 police raids, in which 47 traffickers were identified and 1,063 women were identified as being in the sex industry; 37 were classified as sex slaves.
For the other participating countries, the available performance data declined sharply, officials said.
Among the functions of the Bucharest center's approximately 30 permanent officers is to receive, evaluate and pass on information on suspected illegal movements of people, narcotics and contraband goods to bring about transborder law enforcement operations. More than 100 messages were exchanged during the September operation, Colonel Sotirescu said.
The center, housed in a palace built under Romania's Communist-era dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, carried out its first joint action last summer, focusing on narcotics trafficking across 15 countries from Central Asia to the Balkans. More such operations are in the works.
Mr. Markey said the lack of cooperation the operation sometimes encountered could be explained by political turmoil surrounding elections in some countries, including Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia.
515. concerned - 10/20/2002 7:01:49 PM
Just wanted to say something about Pravda. Not that I frequent its English language site, but, from the little I've seen, it's turned into an online periodical with more apparent objectivity than some American and other European ones (taking into account, of course its Russian viewpoint, which is to be expected, after all).
516. pseudoerasmus - 10/20/2002 7:03:45 PM
Does Concerned realise that Bosnia is made up of three autonomous republics, one Muslim, one Croat and one Serb?
517. concerned - 10/20/2002 7:14:29 PM
Yes. However, I find it interesting that we have a new conjunction of Muslims and white slavery in a geographical region where such practices were apparently prevalent for hundreds of years up until recent historical times. Not that I'm pointing the finger only at Muslims, however. I've read elsewhere that the Russian Mafia is also involved in this trafficking of human flesh.
518. concerned - 10/20/2002 7:19:48 PM
Of course, it should be remembered that the Russian Mafia claims no religious ideals, unlike Muslims.
519. pseudoerasmus - 10/20/2002 7:28:45 PM
"However, I find it interesting that we have a new conjunction of Muslims and white slavery..."
A new conjunction of Muslims and white slavery? Where???
The Albanian mafia, along with the mafias of Russia and Ukraine, are notorious for luring girls in the fomer communist countries with promises of immigration and happy times in Western Europe, and then forcing them into prostitution. Where is the conjunction of Muslims and white slavery? Is there a sectarian or religious character to the Albanian human traffickers that you are aware of?
"...in a geographical region where such practices were apparently prevalent for hundreds of years up until recent historical times."
Are you referring to the Ottoman practise of devshirme? Ottoman authorities demanded levies of children from their Christian subjects in the Balkans, who would be converted to Islam and then raised in a military orphanage. These would become the Ottoman empire's military elite (the famed Janissaries) and imperial administrators.
Devshirme was indeed a kind of slave system but very very far removed from the prostitution rings run by the Albanians today !
So I think your comparison is kind of stupid. If you are looking for Ottoman enslavement of Europeans, then you would have to look to the Crimea before its annexation by Russia in the late 18th century.
520. pseudoerasmus - 10/20/2002 7:34:30 PM
Message # 518: Of course, it should be remembered that the Russian Mafia claims no religious ideals, unlike Muslims."
But, as I said before, Bosnian Muslims are completely secular, as are Albanians, whether they are Muslim, Catholic or Orthodox. So what religious ideals is a secular, nominally Muslim Bosnian or Albanian supposed to have?
By the way, these days, the Slavs of Bosnia who are nominally Muslim prefer to be called "Bosniak", an ethnonym which distinguishes them from Catholic Slavs (Croats) and Orthodox Slavs (Serbs) without an explicit religious reference.
521. stostosto - 10/20/2002 11:18:43 PM
Let it be noted here that the Irish voted for the EU's Nice Treaty that they had rejected last year. Very few people know what that treaty, painstakingly (that word is a mainstay of comments on EU politics) put together in December 2000, really accomplishes even though it's portrayed as a precondition for enlargement of the Union to the east.
I can't even remember what it changes apart from voting weights in the Ministerial Council which probably won't mean anything in practice but which further complicate the already near incomprensible convuluted decision making procedures in the EU.
The Common Agriculture Policy (aka the CAP) wasn't touched, and appears to remain untouchable. This will ensure endless wrangling if and when the applicants join.
The amazing thing about the Irish vote was that the government, having had the treaty rejected last year, simply put the exact same question out again. As in: We'll keep on having referendums until you vote correctly.
Another odd thing was the fact that the turnout, at a measly 49%, was considered a triumph for the intense get-out-the-vote campaign that the yes side in particular had run.
522. stostosto - 10/20/2002 11:23:41 PM
Let it be noted here that the Irish voted for the EU's Nice Treaty that they had rejected last year. Very few people know what that treaty, painstakingly (that word is a mainstay of comments on EU politics) put together in December 2000, really accomplishes even though it's portrayed as a precondition for enlargement of the Union to the east.
I can't even remember what it changes apart from voting weights in the Ministerial Council which probably won't mean anything in practice but which further complicate the already near incomprensible convuluted decision making procedures in the EU.
The Common Agriculture Policy (aka the CAP) wasn't touched, and appears to remain untouchable. This will ensure endless wrangling if and when the applicants join.
The amazing thing about the Irish vote was that the government, having had the treaty rejected last year, simply put the exact same question out again. As in: We'll keep on having referendums until you vote correctly.
Another odd thing was the fact that the turnout, at a measly 49%, was considered a triumph for the intense get-out-the-vote campaign that the yes side in particular had run.
523. stostosto - 10/20/2002 11:24:40 PM
Sorry for the double. No comment on the Irish referendum repeat intended.
524. concerned - 10/21/2002 12:14:33 AM
UC Berserkely Panel says GWB may be behind Bali Blast
Everybody knows how much Leftist Whackos hate to retract, but I understand one is imminent here.
525. concerned - 10/21/2002 12:20:44 AM
LW nutcases stepped in their own shit bigtime here. Hope that crow tastes good, USA haters. Say good-bye to any remaining shreds of your credibility, LW creeps.
526. concerned - 10/21/2002 12:23:03 AM
Text of the original article from the 'Daily Californian':
The United States may have had an active role in carrying out last week's bombing of an international nightclub, members of a panel said at a campus round-table discussion Friday.
Five academics and journalists came to UC Berkeley and examined a number of theories on the source of the explosion.
The Oct. 12 blast in Bali, Indonesia killed nearly 200 people, including more than 100 Australian tourists.
"The information received is that several groups are being looked at more closely," said Jeffrey Hadler, a UC Berkeley professor of South and Southeast Asian studies. "The most important thing is to wait for the investigation."
But the United States may have been directly involved in the bombing in order to further its war on terrorism, he added.
President Bush alleged Oct. 14 that Al Qaeda terrorists were behind the bombing because Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country, Hadler said.
The allegation also furthers Bush's call for war in Iraq, he said.
"Al Qaeda has turned into this incredibly convenient phantom," he said.
Sylvia Tiwon, a professor of Indonesian at UC Berkeley, said Al Qaeda is too small to have perpetrated the bombing.
527. concerned - 10/21/2002 12:52:13 AM
Some panelists said a western military response to the bombing would have negative repercussions for Islamic countries, which they described as politically interconnected.
"Muslims are global and part of a global entity," Tiwon said. "They are all connected.
Some students in attendance said the panel was insightful.
"It opened up a huge list of new questions we're not talking about in the media," said UC Berkeley graduate student Ellen Boccuzzi. "The same way as the World Trade Center is a symbol of western capitalism, so is Bali a symbol of western capitalism."
Other students said international allegations of Al Qaeda involvement in the bombing remove the need to speculate on its perpetrators.
"The U.S. and Bali governments came out and definitively said that it was Al Qaeda," said ASUC Berkeley College Republicans Senator Paul LaFata. "You don't need a big group to pull something off."
528. profemeritus - 10/21/2002 11:43:27 PM
Better late then never. I just now lurked through this thread.
Irv and his two children are in Canada. Yes, they just got out of Bali in time as the kids often hung out on Jalan Legian, including the Sari Club.
The last I heard a week ago is that B.G. Pelair is temporarily in the States and was here during the Bali attack.
I think any effort to ascribe motives in the bombing is premature and foolish as we know very little, in fact nothing, about the perpetrators.
529. profemeritus - 10/21/2002 11:54:04 PM
Btw, Pelle, since 1973, it's been Jakarta, not Djakarta, and Irv's ex-wife does live there.
530. wabbit - 10/21/2002 11:59:24 PM
Hey Prof! Thanks for the update, I hadn't heard anything from Irv and was wondering about the kids and BG. I hope you are well also.
531. arkymalarky - 10/22/2002 12:01:13 AM
Hey ProfE!
Thanks for the update on Irv and his kids.
532. thoughtful - 10/22/2002 12:10:54 AM
ProfE, so good to hear from you and be sure to pass on my regards to Irv. So glad to hear he and BG are safe.
533. OhioSTOPAS - 10/22/2002 11:10:10 AM
Concerned (Message # 524):
The article you cite with such indignation misquotes the members of the Berkeley panel. A correction was printed here:
"Yesterday's article "UC Berkeley Panel Probes Cause of Deadly Bali Blast" incorrectly stated that members at a panel, including UC Berkeley professor Jeffrey Hadler, said the United States may have had an active role in carrying out last week's bombing of an Indonesian night club. Hadler and the other panelists actually said some Indonesian groups have alleged U.S. involvement in the blast as a possibility. At this time, there is no actual evidence supporting these claims by some Indonesian groups."
You credulous, bias-blinded right-wingers will believe ANYTHING, won't you?
534. RickNelson - 10/22/2002 5:15:36 PM
ProfEmeritus,
Thanks for the update of safety. I'm glad to here your family members are out of danger.
concerned? You're not responsible for this error. I'm berating the publication.
The Daily Californian, eh?! Uh hmmm....
I'm glad they deeply regret the error. Was the retraction on page 15, section E, font 6, lower inside, left fold?
535. concerned - 10/22/2002 5:19:40 PM
You credulous, bias-blinded left-wingers will believe ANYTHING, won't you?
Sorry, I'm not stupid enough to buy that the entire content and tone of the article, including virtually all the comments referred to other than Hadler's were fabricated (on the mere basis of Hadler's ex post facto denial of his earlier assertions), and that the entire retraction which (as you somehow conveniently forgot to say anything about) I mentioned up front, by the same editorial staff was exactly correct.
536. concerned - 10/22/2002 5:20:46 PM
Btw, 535 was to 533. 534 wasn't posted when I began writing it. Thanks, RN, for being perceptive about it.
537. concerned - 10/22/2002 8:23:19 PM
538. stostosto - 10/22/2002 11:10:34 PM
Gee, concerned, from what you say it sounds like them lefties are horrible people.
539. stostosto - 10/22/2002 11:19:27 PM
Andonly #503:
Thanks for elaborating. It's certainly an unusual kid, and an unusual family.
I laughed at your son's sore losing.
I tried to play chess with my kids too. My daughter (6) was the most eager, and although she barely knew how the pieces move she went into a fit when I beat her. She insisted we play again, and same thing happened: She was absolutely hysteric and in tears. I had to play a game and let her win before she calmed down. Since then, she has once or twice suggested we play again, assuring me solemnly that she wouldn't be mad if she lost. But she is.
Six year olds. Pathetic, I tell you.
Can't even play chess well. Sheesh.
540. marjoribanks - 10/23/2002 4:18:08 PM
If Pseuder can be stirred, his comments on this story would be appreciated. I'd like to know how he thinks the Russians are going to react.
541. RickNelson - 10/23/2002 4:23:25 PM
Stostosto,
The little angels learn young how to wrap father around their finger. It doesn't change. I've learned that I can openly talk about her ability to manipulate a situation negotiating with dad and my 18 yr old freely admits she has the talent.
With open negotiating now on my table, I'm Ok with it all. It took years to get to this point.
Good luck fellow father.
542. sakonige - 10/23/2002 4:23:58 PM
I've been hoping he would comment on that, since he can read what is being said in the Russian press.
543. sakonige - 10/23/2002 4:28:26 PM
A couple of Russians I was talking to on the Guardian seem pretty sure the hostages are doomed.
544. PincherMartin - 10/23/2002 4:41:16 PM
Anyone remeber who posted this a couple of weeks ago?
I think the Montgomery Co. sniper is almost certainly a home grown rightwinger. I find that the current political atmosphere in these USA is emboldening these scum for several reasons.
One big one is that there is far more tolerance than usual for hatespeech and its attendant ignorance and bigotries, witness the proliferation of such even in a relatively insulated place as this website [The Mote]. There was a time when the cartoonishly stupid would hesitate to proclaim their nonsense in the open, now they will babble on as though their IQ's somehow went up when the twin towers came down.
Another is the rampant paranoia about terrorists within, which is actually being encouraged by the likes of Ashcroft. This paranoia sometimes spills over into hysteria, and hysteria feeds the rightwing scum.
Yet another reason is all this talk about extreme violence and vengeance and pre-emptive actions emanating from the government. Such endless propaganda, emitted at the highest volumes from the highest pulpits in this land breeds violence internally as well.
A final reason, one which I explored in the early days after 9/11 on this site is that the rightwinger scum are chagrined that a bunch of Arabs could pull off widespread terror while they're mostly still stuck shooting rats and screwing their underage nieces in filthy rural compounds. They want theirs, this shooting spree is almost certainly sign of something like that.
545. marjoribanks - 10/23/2002 5:02:12 PM
PMS,
Thank you. I was looking for that post.
546. Andonly - 10/23/2002 5:13:26 PM
I'll be damned.
Just yesterday, I had come to the conclusion that the Maryland sniper may indeed be connected in some way to Islamist terrorists, perhaps as some sort of symapthizer. The reason for my conclusion was the reported $10 million the sniper demanded. You probably don't extort money in such quantities if you've got no grand plan for its use.
In conjunction with that, the business of the Tarot card began to take on a different hue. "Mr. Policeman, I am God"--a bit hackneyed, really. No wonder the cops thought it might be a prank.
But maybe it was a ruse. A diversion to ensure the spree could go on a while before anyone cottoned onto terrorists and brought out the National Guard. And what if you take "I am God" in a metaphorical context? In that case, perhaps the message, in addition to being a diversion, is a reference to divine vengeance.
This guy has shot one person every day or two now for an extended period. I'm no crime maven, but that's not exactly typical serila killer behavior, is it? Usually, serial killers wait a bit in between killings, carefully planning and holding out until compulsion overwhelms them. They're selective about whom they kill; it's usually women or children.
This isn't like that. It's more programmatic. It has the smell of ideology mixed with pragmatism.
Next came the message, yesterday or the day before, that "your children are not safe anywhere." That's nothing if not a terroristic threat. It's meant to be.
547. Andonly - 10/23/2002 5:13:46 PM
But is this guy linked with al Qaeda? Or is he a freelance sympathizer? Or maybe something in between?
If he's a freelancer, he sure seems to be operating like someone's conception of an Islamist terrorist. Which made me think he might very well be an American convert to Islam, possibly an ex-con, probably black. I relayed my suspicion about him being an American convert to my sister yesterday, who had already had a similar little epiphany that he wasn't just an ordinary nut with a gun. My husband, however, while not ruling anything out, was sort of skeptical.
Now, this morning's news from the AP wire:
SEATTLE (Oct. 24) - Investigators are combing through the lives of two men named in connection with the Washington, D.C.-area sniper investigation, searching for clues to what may have motivated a killing spree.
John Allen Muhammad, 42, one of the men, is a Muslim convert said to be sympathetic to the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to published reports. Muhammad, formerly a soldier at Fort Lewis, and John Lee Malvo, 17, a Jamaican citizen who attended school in Bellingham, may have been motivated by anti-American sentiments, The Seattle Times reported Thursday, quoting unidentified federal officials.
The officials said both were known to have expressed sympathy toward the hijackers, but neither was believed to be associated with the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Malvo is believed to be the stepson of Muhammad, who converted to Islam many years ago and changed his name last year from John Allen Williams, investigators told the Times.
548. wonkers2 - 10/23/2002 11:10:47 PM
Just wait, Bush will soon have them on a mission from Sadaam Hussein.
549. marjoribanks - 10/24/2002 4:24:22 PM
I've been consumed by the book pictured below since it arrived in my hands a couple of days ago.
Doubtless the best cricket book since the great C.L. R. James wrote 'Beyond a Boundary' and even more sweeping in its scope, Guha does a superb job of tracking Indian political and social history via the rise of cricket. Everyone is in the book, from the great early Indian cricketers to the Viceroys to Palwankar Baloo (a Konkani) who rose from the ranks of the untouchables to become a national hero, to Gandhi, to R. K. Narayan (who is pictured on the cover playing with his nephews).
Along the way, I've picked up innumerable fascinating little nuggets. One may be of interest , since we've been reading Dawn, the Pak newspaper, here for years. It was the Muslim League paper before Partition, and the amazing story is that it's most famous editor, an ideologue and polemicist much admired by his readership, wasn't even a Muslim! He was something Joseph, a Keralite Christian!
550. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/2002 4:32:26 PM
The recent elections in Pakistan were presented in the press as a surge in the popularity of the Islamists. But that is resoundingly false.
The coalition of Islamist parties got 11.2% of the national vote. That is LESS than what Islamist parties have gotten in all the elections since the late 1980s.
The surprise was that the Islamists took approx. 15% of the seats in the National Assembly, even though in previous elections, Islamists had won only a handful of assembly seats despite having polled slightly a higher percentage of the national vote.
This disparity is due to the quirks of Pakistan's first-past-the-post electoral system.
In a proportional representation system, the number of seats accruing to a party in the legislature is proportional to the percentage of the vote. Thus, a party winning 10% of the vote would get approx. 10% of the seats. But in the first-past-the-post system, the candidate with the most votes in an electoral system wins the seat for the district outright, even if he had only 30% of the vote in that district.
In the past, Pakistan's Islamist parties used to get approximately 15% of the national vote. But that garnered them only a handful of seats in the National Assembly, because one of the establishement parties -- the PPP or the PML -- won most of the districts outright simply by getting 30% or so of the vote.
551. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/2002 4:33:57 PM
In the most recent elections, there must have been a strong shift in favour of Islamists in just a few electoral districts, but not in most others, and this was enough to give them the 50 or so seats out of 342. Indeed, the Islamists did show significant new strength in two (rather low-population) provinces, the NWFP and Baluchistan, where they now control the provincial assemblies, something they had never done before. This was surely on account of the war in Afghanistan.
So the Islamists in Pakistan did do something new and surprising by gaining a significant number of seats in the National Assembly for the first time ever.
However, as an indicator of the aggregate popular sentiment in Pakistan, the Islamist performance in the recent elections hasn't changed much in the last 13 years.
552. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/2002 4:34:39 PM
I was responding to Marjoribanks's Message # 1347 in thread 150
553. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/2002 4:38:48 PM
errata:
"candidate with the most votes in an electoral system"
should read
"candidate with the most votes in an electoral DISTRICT"
554. marjoribanks - 10/24/2002 4:41:03 PM
I'm going to make a few comments about purported anti-Christian violence in India, the topic having been raised by Pseuder in another thread.
1) The Human Rights Watch quote provided is grossly misleading. The reference to nuns being raped is to a falsehood - the nuns in Jhabua were indeed attacked and raped but the mob which did it included several Christians. It was an isolated incident which cannot be termed anti-Christian.
2) The report (as I remember) also mentioned "missionaries" being murdered. In fact, one Aussie missionary was killed, the first (and arguably only) casualty in 50 years in anti-Christian violence.
3) Since 1947, there were a statistically insignificant half-dozen or so total incidents that could be put into this category. From 1997 the number went up to a still statistically insignificant couple of score per annum. Without a doubt you will find more incidents that have taken place on these lines (burning of churches etc) in the US than in India.
4) I'm being exceedingly generous in accepting and acknowledging the attacks that take place on the fundie missionaries as anti-Christian. In fact they can be seen in other lights, including as a symptom of simple nationalism. There are three or four significant Indian Christian communities, all have lived undisturbed and untouched in India for a very long time and certainly since 1947. The Yank-style, big-bucks, fundie missionaries are a separate category, they have emerged in recent years and they go to the most backward, least-literate, most vulnerable parts of India to do their work and are treated occasionally in the most backward fashion by the local power-holders - thus the great majority of incidents in this purported wave of anti-Christian violence.
In fact, looking at it from any statistical standpoint, there is no significant hostility in India between Christians and Hindus.
555. marjoribanks - 10/24/2002 4:43:23 PM
So the Islamists in Pakistan did do something new and surprising by gaining a significant number of seats in the National Assembly for the first time ever.
This is indeed what is significant. The Islamists will now have a louder national voice than they have previously posessed.
Which leads me to believe that Musharraf is going to dissolve the NA sooner rather than later, but that's another story.
556. marjoribanks - 10/24/2002 4:43:53 PM
I'll be back later in the day to follow up if needed.
557. pseudoerasmus - 10/24/2002 4:47:01 PM
It's not just Human Rights Watch, it's also the State Department and Amnesty International.
558. concerned - 10/24/2002 5:13:36 PM
I think the Montgomery Co. sniper is almost certainly a home grown rightwinger. I find that the current political atmosphere in these USA is emboldening these scum for several reasons. (snip)
It's often entertaining to reread the posts in which the person who wrote the above displays his stupidity, blind ignorance and partisan bigotry with such farcical certitude.
559. concerned - 10/24/2002 5:51:12 PM
Oh, and I hope not to have my intelligence insulted by any piffle which insinuates that anyone who participated in Desert Storm must needs have had RW affiliations.
560. jexster - 10/24/2002 5:57:08 PM
Bush seems to have problems developing a common strategy with any partners on any issue doesn't he....
Bush administration officials struggled on Thursday to develop a common strategy on North Korea's nuclear program with Asian partners.
U.S. and Its Asian Partners Strain to Form United Stand on North Korea
561. marjoribanks - 10/24/2002 6:39:05 PM
It's not just Human Rights Watch, it's also the State Department and Amnesty International.
Well, they all are wrong.
562. marjoribanks - 10/24/2002 6:43:38 PM
I don 't want this comment to be misinterprested, but there have been more casualties in the last six months in Pakistan which could be termed anti-christian than in the 55 years of India's independent existence.
563. PincherMartin - 10/24/2002 6:52:47 PM
Marjori Banks --
Thank you. I was looking for that post.
Glad to be of service.
Any additional comments now that it appears likely our rightwing snipers are in custody?
We have 1) a Muslim African-American man who sympathizes with the 9-11 terrorists and 2) an illegal immigrant from Jamaica.
Do these suspects seem like the typical rightwing ideologues, influenced by George Bush and John Ashcroft speeches?
We deserve a follow-up, Marj. Everyone's really keen on where you are going to take this.
564. TabouliJones - 10/24/2002 7:02:56 PM
On the alleged snipers:
Someone asked if there has been any word from Farakhan or The nation of Islam on John Allen Muhammad's connections to the group. Farakhan and TNoI have thus far, apparently, declined to comment. From the National Post .
565. Wombat - 10/24/2002 7:49:52 PM
Turns out everyone was right on the snipers. A veteran and a Muslim apparently with some major issues personality-wise. Given his areas of action, perhaps he had something against someone named Montgomery.
If one sees Muslim extremism (which so far does not seem to be the major component behind his actions) as reactionary, of course that would make him a right-winger as well, although not in the sense that Marj had in mind.
566. stostosto - 10/24/2002 8:13:21 PM
Pseud
Thanks for the comment on Pakistan. Why, I wonder, has this not been mentioned in mainstream media? It's bloody well worth mentioning, I should think. (Or, maybe it has been mentioned, after all I haven't followed this closely, but then only obscurely).
567. jexster - 10/24/2002 9:09:00 PM
I have a young Russian friend, a 20 year old undergrad that I chit chat with in the computer lab from time to time...give him the big "kak dela!"..cute little slav boy loves it!
We were talking yesterday about a whole range of things..Iraq, his plans for law school and stuff...we also discussed Chechens
"Things were so much better under the Communists. That Chechen scum wouldn't have dared. The KGB would kill thousands of those Nazi collaborators...I hope Putin kills every last one of them"
The kid is something else...wants to be a criminal defense attorney because he thinks the police are liars and the system rigged..yet he idolizes Stalin and Ariel Sharon...
Go figger
568. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:36:37 PM
Re. 565 -
To say that Islamic fundamentalism is 'RW' betrays an inability to properly associate and categorize ideas.
569. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:36:42 PM
Re. 565 -
To say that Islamic fundamentalism is 'RW' betrays an inability to properly associate and categorize ideas.
570. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:40:42 PM
Re. 564 -
Farrakhan's in a tough spot here. One of the DC sniper's victims was a big time Farrakhan supporter but a non-Muslim.
So, what's Farrakhan to do? Either he can behave like a human being and deplore the killings in toto, or he can act like a Muslim and keep his mouth shut.
571. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:43:42 PM
I expect Farrakhan the Saddamite'll probably try to placate both sides by waiting an inordinate length of time, and if the pressure's too great, make some grudging comment about Islam being a 'religion of peace'.
What a total asshole.
572. jexster - 10/24/2002 11:49:43 PM
What a total bigot.
573. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:51:14 PM
You're projecting again, jexster.
574. jexster - 10/24/2002 11:51:58 PM
Try again.
575. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:51:58 PM
So, you must be pro hate, jexster, because that's the only thing I'm opposing.
576. concerned - 10/24/2002 11:53:47 PM
jexster -
As one who supports the lowest human scum on the face of the earth - Palestinian child killers, despots like Saddam and Mugabe, etc., you don't have the credentials to call *anybody* here a bigot, because that's preeeminently what *you* are.
577. Andonly - 10/25/2002 5:51:40 PM
I wondered whether the Russians had thought of using some sort of knock-out gas to disable the Chechens holding the theater hostages in Moscow, but I figured as soon as the militants discovered what was up, they'd blow out the place's supporting columns just before passing out. But it worked, more or less:
MOSCOW (Oct. 26) - Gunfire rattled in the theater at dawn Saturday and Russian special forces pumped it full of sleeping gas before troops stormed the building, killing 34 Chechen rebels and freeing more than 700 captives in the third day of a hostage drama. Officials said 67 captives were killed.
Next time I suppose the Chechens will come equipped with gas masks.
578. concerned - 10/28/2002 8:33:28 AM
Zimbabwe: Yes, we have no prisoners
Excerpt:
Typical Leftist stance: moral considerations do not enter into the picture.
"This is not Stalinist Russia," said a police spokesman, "It is not our intention to arrest millions of people and then deny their existence, mainly because we do not have any Siberian labour camps in which to hide them."
579. concerned - 10/28/2002 8:34:45 AM
Oops. My comment was supposed to come after the excerpt. But, you get the idea.
580. thoughtful - 10/28/2002 7:07:58 PM
andonly, my understanding is they did have gas masks, but the gas took effect so quickly they were unable to don them in time.
the gas also managed to kill over 100 hostages and the russians are not being forthcoming about what gas was used so doctors are struggling to treat patients when they don't know what's caused their ills.
Very tragic all the way around.
581. JJBiener - 10/28/2002 7:24:10 PM
I have already told this to my SO, but I want to state it here for the record. If it should happen that I am being held hostage by a terrorist group and the Russians offer to help get me out, tell them, No, Thank you. I would rather take my chances with the terrorists. Better yet, tell the Israeli government that there is a nice Jewish boy being held hostage, and let them take care of it.
582. jexster - 10/28/2002 8:22:52 PM
The fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in November 2001 presented the international community with an unprecedented opportunity to restore peace and security to a perennial trouble spot. Almost one year later it appears that it has failed.
Inaction and Ineffectiveness - Allons a Baghdad??
583. jexster - 10/28/2002 11:02:20 PM
"Le Row" - Chirac voudrait couper les couilles a Blair
584. Andonly - 10/29/2002 4:12:33 AM
Yes, yes, but is your dog gay?
585. wonkers2 - 10/29/2002 6:04:16 AM
Cap'n Dirty sez "Ain't no ass lick'n gay dogs allowed aboard the Tomater Sloop!"
586. jexster - 10/29/2002 7:45:21 PM
"By taking on the United States in the Security Council, France has in effect made itself the standard-bearer for every other country that is worried about the extent of U.S. power." Los Angeles Times
La Marseillaise [WAV]
Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Liberté, Liberté chérie
Combats avec tes défenseurs!
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents
Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!
Aux armes citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons
587. jexster - 10/29/2002 11:51:47 PM
ahem....attention s'il vous plait, Jeximan the Magnificent right again
588. jexster - 10/29/2002 11:52:26 PM
589. jexster - 10/30/2002 3:34:40 AM
Tous ces tigres {chickenhawks} qui, sans pitié
Déchirent le sein de leur mère
590. concerned - 10/31/2002 7:13:24 PM
'Intense hatred' of U.S. found in foreign teens
Er....why was it exactly that pageant officials weren't allowing Miss America to promote pre marital abstinence?
591. sakonige - 11/1/2002 1:05:37 AM
"The teenagers said Americans commit criminal and violent acts, lack strong family and religious values, and are materialistic, imperialistic and like to dominate. They also said that American women are sexually immoral."
592. sakonige - 11/1/2002 1:07:21 AM
Thanks for posting that article, concerned.
593. alistairconnor - 11/1/2002 1:24:54 AM
That article is a scream.
So teenagers from all but one of Argentina, Bahrain, China, the Dominican Republic, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain and Taiwan have extremely negative opinions of life in the USA. Which is the odd one out?
I'd guess Italy.
594. PincherMartin - 11/1/2002 5:08:13 AM
Argentina, believe it or not.
595. concerned - 11/1/2002 7:19:11 AM
AC -
So, what's with Italy, IYO?
596. concerned - 11/1/2002 7:24:23 AM
Caption: "Where are the virgins that were promised to me?"
597. concerned - 11/1/2002 7:25:52 AM
Link on image on my last post.
598. sakonige - 11/1/2002 10:18:13 PM
It reminds me of the way Islamic suicide bombers use the desecration of the corpses of their Jewish victims, who are supposed to be buried whole according to religious custom.
599. PelleNilsson - 11/3/2002 8:32:43 PM
A high Soviet - sorry, Russian, official said over the weekens that "Denmark sponsors terrorists and is a psudoliberal country which is on its way to be lost to civilization" (my translation of the translation from Russian to Swedish).
The row is over the Chechen vice premier(?) Ahmed Zakajev who Russia wants extradited which Denmark refuses unless Russia provides proof of his alleged terrorist connections.
600. jexster - 11/4/2002 9:55:04 PM
ISTANBUL
An electoral earthquake shook Turkey's politics to its foundations on Sunday and all but eliminated its complacent and exhausted ruling elites. The Justice and Development Party — the third and least Islamist in a sequence of Islamist political parties — led with a third of the votes. Yet these elections were not about Islam or whether Turkey would turn its back on modernization and secularism. These elections were about realigning Turkey's politics; they were the eruption of popular wrath against established parties. The Democratic Left Party of Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, for instance, received a pitiful 1.3 percent of the vote.
From this perspective, the Justice and Development Party has spoken for the angry, downtrodden, impoverished and excluded masses that have borne the burden of the economic crisis and Turkey's integration with global markets. But the results also indicate the emergence of a new coalition of the provincial middle class, conservative urban professionals and intellectuals.
These constituencies have conflicting interests that will be hard to balance. Doing so may prove to be the Justice and Development Party's great challenge. Should it succeed, it will have claimed the center of the political spectrum with a communitarian-liberal synthesis and established itself as Turkey's predominant party.
Islamist Voice in EU???
Soli Ozel,professor Istanbul Bilgi University and editor of the Turkish edition of Foreign Policy
601. stostosto - 11/4/2002 10:00:10 PM
The events were as follows:
First, a so-called world congress of Chechnya was called in Copenhagen. Participants were some prominent Chechen politicians and spokesmen aiming to attract international attention to their plight, plus Danish (and foreign?) politicians and honoratiores sympathetic to that plight.
Then, days before it was to take place, the Nord-East Theatre was attacked by a gang of Chechen terrorists.
Then, Russia demanded that Denmark cancel the congress claiming that many if not all the Chechen participants were terrorists and were complicit in the Moscow hostage taking.
Then, Denmark refused to cancel the congress on the grounds that it was not an official event and that there is freedom of speech and assembly in this country. The government simply had jurisdiction; on the other hand if the Russians could name terrorists and substantiate their claims, it would be a police matter.
Then, the Russians were furious, Putin's spokesman declared that Danes were "spitting on the Russian soul" or something. Putin announced that he would not attend a planned summit in Copenhagen due in November if Denmark didn't comply.
Then, the Danish government resolved and announced that the meeting would be moved to Brussels.
Then, the congress was held.
Then, the theatre was stormed.
Then, the day after, Danish police arrested Akhmed Zakayev, vice deputy prime minister, on the request of the Russians.
Then, nobody knew what the hell was going on. The Russians didn't even place an official request for Zakayev's extradition, much less produce any evidence for his terrorist activities.
602. stostosto - 11/4/2002 10:00:31 PM
Then, prominent westerners (Al Haig, Z. Brzezinski, Vanessa Redgraves, and others) denounced the Russians as deliberately trying to delegitimise all Chechens, and Zakayev in particular because he is seen as a very reasonable person and important in any negotiated settlement -- because the Russians are determined not to negotiate anything on Chechnya.
Now, Zakayev is held in Copenhagen, while the Russian politicians have been whipping up an atmosphere of Denmark-bashing, threatening trade sanctions and fuming at their mouths.
The Danish government has been grilled by the opposition over the strange handling of the affair.
And the buzz is that Zakayev will never be extradited to Russia, which will guarantee more Russian fuming. Last I heard the Russians are said to be hard at work producing evidence against him, but it's largely assumed here that any such evidence will either be thin or fabricated.
There has been speculations that Zakayev might seek political asylum. Then, there has also been speculations that in that case he will not be granted it here, but referred to Belgium, Switzerland, or the UK, countries which have all granted him a visa before Denmark did, and therefore would be first in line as asylum country because such are the rules, and some media heads give out the air that such a solution would be a relief because then Denmark would be off the hook.
Me, I don't know what to make of it all. But my instincts are that the Russians are insanely brutal in Chechnya and inflict about 100 times the amount of terror there that Chechnyans have done on Russians.
603. stostosto - 11/4/2002 10:02:25 PM
601-2 were comments to Pelle's question in the I&P thread.
604. stostosto - 11/4/2002 10:10:12 PM
I also heard that Boris Berezovsky, Russian business tycoon of the "oligarch" variety, has offered Zakayev his help. Berezovsky is currently living in London I think, and the Russians want him extradited on a laundry list of charges. I am not sure I would be glad to have that kind of help if I were in Zakayev's shoes...
605. Andonly - 11/5/2002 7:41:46 PM
Let's see. England won't extradite to Russia, Denmark won't extradite to Russia, and France and sometimes Germany won't extradite to the US (on account of the death penalty).
Clearly the war on terrorism is off to a great start.
606. PelleNilsson - 11/5/2002 8:05:09 PM
No EU country will extradite to the US if the person extradited may be subject to the death penalty. Russia has a moratorium on the DP since 1996 and has in any case reportedly promised Denmark that it would not be applied in the case of Zakayev.
607. PincherMartin - 11/5/2002 11:52:38 PM
The latest terrorist incident in Moscow shows what a joke this DP issue is.
Like so many other countries from Turkey to several African countries, Moscow does not have the death penalty on account of European lobbying. So what do the Russians do when they storm the theater? They shoot nearly all of the unconscious Chechen terrorists dead. Nothing like a little extra-judicial punishment to get around the lack of a death penalty.
608. concerned - 11/6/2002 12:05:24 AM
Well, it strikes me as being extremely disingenuous and petty for an European government to refuse extradition of violent international criminals and terrorists to the US merely on the basis of our laws regarding the death penalty. Such behavior is nearly equivalent to a formal position that serving justice, let alone international cooperation, is less important than to coerce the US into giving foreign governments an arbitrary right to meddle in our sovereign legal codes.
609. Andonly - 11/6/2002 1:04:16 AM
Didn't Germany just extradite one of the terrorists rounded up in Hamburg or something? Maybe they sent him to Pakistan, I can't recall.
610. Marc-Albert - 11/6/2002 10:39:37 PM
The French will also extradite to the US provided the death penalty will not be requested. A few months ago, a French appeal court ordered the extradition of that well-known American radical of the 70's (so well-known that I forgot his name) accused of having killed his wife.
Since the American authorities had promised not to invoke the death penalty, the guy's formidable battery of French and European defenders opposed his extradition on the grounds that the American judicial system was corrupted, that the accused could not expect a fair trial in the US and that Americans cops had threatened to shoot him, blablabla. The judge rejected those arguments.
611. PincherMartin - 11/6/2002 11:30:11 PM
Ira Einhorn, a hippie icon from the 1970s
612. Andonly - 11/7/2002 1:47:55 AM
Yes, Ira Einhorn, who murdered his girlfriend and stashed her body in a trunk before heading for more welcoming soil.
He was only recently extradited.
613. Roy Bean - 11/7/2002 10:57:52 AM
Why should it be surprising that some countries might not want to extradite to the US? Especialy civilized countries.
The image of the US at the moment is that we let our special forces roam across Afghanistan like cowboys, shooting on sight hundreds and hundreds of people they thought were suspicious. Our image is also tarnished by the carting of POWs in closed containers which in many cases led to death and even in those that didn't was certainly cruel torture. Then there's the sensory deprivation the US military likes to engage in, as seen in the early Guantanamo prisoner photos that caused an uproar in Europe and is now seen again in these photos: Prisoners
I love my country but I have little to no respect for the way it treats prisoners. Even on the civilian side right now you have leaders of several states rushing to see who can be the first to inject lethal substances into Mohammed and Malvo, long before there has been any trial yet. Sure we know he's almost surely guilty but the image is one of barbarism and a kind of civilizational decay.
So no, it doesn't surprise or bother me at all when Europeans don't want to extradite to the US.
614. joezan - 11/7/2002 1:26:55 PM
Bean:
Not that I'd have had any problem at all with perpetual sensory deprivation of these guys - but if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that long ago it was shown that the Gitmo prisoners were blindfolded etc for the plane ride over to Cuba in order to discourage any kind of up-rising, and un-deprived shortly after their arrival at Gitmo.
Tough shit if you don't like that.
What's more, as this CNN interview shows, the prisoners have been treated very humanely - alot more humanely thatn they deserve, imh:
"They treated us well. We had enough food to eat. We could pray and wash with water five times a day. We had the Koran and read it all the time," he said.
615. joezan - 11/7/2002 1:30:17 PM
...caused an uproar in Europe.
OOOhhh - Imagine that!
616. joezan - 11/7/2002 1:35:08 PM
By the way...
The real Roy Bean would hang you twice for spewing such puke.
617. Wombat - 11/7/2002 3:31:53 PM
The US record on extraditing terror suspects is not very good either. Ask the British about how easy it has been to get suspected IRA members out of the United States.
618. Marc-Albert - 11/7/2002 7:53:41 PM
"Turkey is not a European country"
Former French President Giscard ("VGD"), now President of the EU Commission on the Future of Europe, had declared in a meeting with reporters yesterday (published in Le MOnde a few hours ago) that Europe is not a European country and should not be admitted as a member of the EU. Quite a bombshell in Europe today.
Among his arguments:
1) 95% of the population of Turkey lives outside Europe and its capital is not even in Europe.
2) Turkey would be the most populous country in the EU and would control the largest parliamentary bloc.
3) If Turkey is admitted in the EU, then Morocco has vowed to apply for admission as well ("Indeed if we admit a non-European country to the East, why should be refuse admission to non-European countries to the South")
Enfin, somebody declaring openly that the emperor has no clothes on.
619. Marc-Albert - 11/7/2002 7:58:10 PM
"that Europe is not a European country"
that should be of course: that Turkey is not a European country
620. PelleNilsson - 11/7/2002 8:14:23 PM
No doubt, those arguments will go down very well in certain quarters in Europe, but I think their main effect will be to create the impression that Giscard is past it, thus undermining his authority as leader of the European Convention (or whatever that body is called). which is supposed to come up with a revised European constitution by next summer.
621. Andonly - 11/7/2002 8:53:41 PM
"No doubt, those arguments will go down very well in certain quarters in Europe..."
Well many Turks and other Muslims believe they are widely held and that Turkey will never be admitted becasue it is a Muslim country.
But barring any ominous moves by the new leadership in Ankara or some huge Islamist assault in Germany or France, I don't see accession stalling out. Euro elites and sheer momentum will prevail--and that will probably be for the best.
622. pseudoerasmus - 11/7/2002 8:59:42 PM
I've been reading the commentary on the recent Turkish elections in the press and I see a chorus of voices which appear to agree on two things:
623. pseudoerasmus - 11/7/2002 9:00:07 PM
So perhaps Erdogan's rhetoric is more a sign of a "Bolshevik" strategy by the AKP than a true change in nature. What I mean is that the people around Erdogan are clever and Machiavellian enough to realise that Erbakan had acted foolishly in being overtly Islamist. Erbakan forged close ties with Iran, denounced Turkey's close military alliance with Israel, proposed extensive public subsidies for religious education, and did all kinds of other things which scared the secularists. I think members of the AKP have basically the same goals as Erbakan but are flexible and cunning enough to get Erdogan to mouth reassuring rhetoric about commitment to secularism, the alliance with the USA and orthodox economics under IMF management.
Re: #2
I think it's correct that the percent of the vote received by AKP reflects a protest vote more than the level of popular support for Islamists. This much is mentioned quite a bit in the press, but there's more to it than that which goes unmentioned in the press.
In economics, there is a concept called moral hazard. Basically it means that something creates an incentive for people to consume more goods & services, or behave more recklessly, than in the absence of that incentive. Thus, those with medical insurance (private or state) may consume more medical services than they might if they didn't have insurance. Or banks may make riskier loans when deposits are guaranteed by the government; or international investors may overinvest in Third World debt because they may anticipate a bailout by the IMF/US Treasury in case these countries default.
624. pseudoerasmus - 11/7/2002 9:01:38 PM
I believe precisely the same thing happens with the Turkish electorate. Many perfectly secular Turks, who are sick and tired of the corruption and incompetence of the mainstream parties, voted for the Islamist AKP knowing that the Islamists cannot overstep certain bounds because the armed forces will prevent them. So the Turkish electorate "overvoted" for the AKP, i.e., more people voted for the AKP as a result of the moral hazard created by the armed forces' vigilance than they might have done in its absence. Perhaps only 7-8% out of the 34% won by AKP represent genuine Islamist elements.
625. stostosto - 11/7/2002 9:28:24 PM
He. That argument is kind of funny. The army's acting as a guarantor of the secular constitution has ensured an electoral victory for the Islamists. What, then, is the equivalent of the "let the markets rip" argument? And who is going to propose it?
626. pseudoerasmus - 11/7/2002 9:36:16 PM
"The army's acting as a guarantor of the secular constitution has ensured an electoral victory for the Islamists."
Precisely my point, made more succinct. The army's guarantee keeps the Turkish electorate in permanent immaturity, because the guarantee allows them to vote recklessly and to not really fear the consequences of their own actions.
627. marjoribanks - 11/7/2002 9:59:58 PM
Apropos of nothing, let me share that I just found out that President Clerides of Cyprus is married to a Bene Israeli Marathi-speaking Indian jew, the daughter of Gandhi's prominent friend Dr. Erulkar.
628. PelleNilsson - 11/7/2002 10:23:59 PM
The first test of AKPs Euro-friendliness will come at the EU summit in December when Cyprus will be accepted as a member although the Greek-Turkish conflict there has not been resolved. Also, the EU is expected to refuse to give a date for the start of negotiations with Turkey, although the idea of giving a date for giving a date has been mooted.
629. stostosto - 11/7/2002 10:52:47 PM
Ando:
Let's see. England won't extradite to Russia, Denmark won't extradite to Russia, and France and sometimes Germany won't extradite to the US (on account of the death penalty).
Clearly the war on terrorism is off to a great start.
Are you implying that Zakhayev is a bin Ladenist, a terrorist with global reach? That is hardly the case. The Chechen war is a separatist civil war, even if the Islamist have barged in on it.
Moreover, the Russians had talks with Zakayev last year in Moscow airport -- at a point in time where they already fingered him for having been a commander of a force of Chechen rebels, something that he has never denied.
Since Russia is in a state of fury over everything Chechen right now, and the Russian judicial system being what it is, I think there is reason to doubt that Zakayev could get a fair trial in Russia. If this is so, should he be extradited?
Actually I think even if Zakhayev does get a fair trial and isn't convicted for anything else than what he has actually done, this will probably amount to at least 20 years in jail. After all, he has been a leader of armed rebellion in Chechnya, which is part of Russia, ergo he is a criminal.
Exactly like the revolting Slovenes, Croats, Bosnians and Kosovars were criminals in the old Yugoslavia.
630. Marc-Albert - 11/7/2002 11:05:55 PM
The Chechens blew it (and blew up quite a few Russians and other non-Chechens) during those 3 years Chechnya was de facto independent. So I understand the Russians' feelings.
631. stostosto - 11/7/2002 11:08:19 PM
As someone once said:
Revolution is legal -- if it succeeds.
632. stostosto - 11/7/2002 11:12:35 PM
Marc-Albert
Clearly the Chechens are a fractious people without any measure of centralised government. But, as I understand things, Zakhayev is precisely the type you'd need for a uniting leadership, and the Russians don't want that.
633. stostosto - 11/7/2002 11:16:39 PM
The revolutionary bon mot is attributed to August Strindberg, thus:
"När är revolution laglig? När den lyckas."
"When is revolution legal? When it succeeds."
Just to pre-empt Pelle.
634. Marc-Albert - 11/8/2002 1:07:59 AM
Le premier roi était un soldat chanceux
(The first king was a lucky soldier)
Anyways, it sure was the case with your Bernadotte, wasn't it.
635. jexster - 11/8/2002 5:10:53 PM
Kramer: I think we've opened Endorra's box.
Seinfeld: Don't you mean Pandora?
Kramer: She's got one too.
"Russia declared Tuesday the right to take preemptive military action beyond its borders in the fight against terrorism and said it would re-evaluate its relations with countries that do not join the fight. Declaring a 'battle without borders,' Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that 'the armed forces will be used if necessary, according to the kind of terrorist act (being prepared or carried out) and the involvement of foreign countries.' Ivanov also announced that Russia planned to modernize its military and keep a million-strong army that was both mobile and well equipped. In a series of statements, published separately in the Izvestia daily and made during his tour of army bases in the Russian Far East, Ivanov delivered a tough new warning against Chechen guerrillas and international terror groups....'This battle has no borders, no fronts, or visible enemies,' he said."
Monkey See, Monkey Do
636. jexster - 11/8/2002 5:11:12 PM
toys
637. jexster - 11/8/2002 5:15:27 PM
<
http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/metro/election02/07gemain.html target=new>Georgia Governor-Elect Sonny Perdue Wants to Bring Back the Confederate Flag
"Sonny" Perdue - if that's not a cracker
638. Marc-Albert - 11/8/2002 6:21:10 PM
Why not posting on state of Georgia politics in American Politics?
639. judithathome - 11/8/2002 6:24:13 PM
It's posted over there; this post was more than likely mistakenly posted in this thread.
640. pseudoerasmus - 11/9/2002 3:35:23 AM
I forgot to comment on another aspect of the recent Turkish elections: the unprecedented deformity of the results.
The AKP won 66% of the seats in Parliament while only getting 34.3% of the national vote. This was made possible because 12 other parties, representing a combined total of 46.1% of the national vote, each got less than 10% and were thus completely excluded from parliament.
This is more deformed than the solid parliamentary majorities achieved by Thatcher despite never winning more than 43% of the vote. And Turkey doesn't even have first-past-the-post system as an excuse. What it does have is a ridiculously high threshhold (10%) for entry into parliament.
641. concerned - 11/9/2002 6:01:03 AM
Re. 637 -
jexster's getting his georgia's mixed up, as well as his html formatting.
642. concerned - 11/9/2002 8:00:15 AM
Litany of anti-US lies from Yourapeon morons
Excerpt:
"Anti-Americanism is not a fringe phenomenon," Broder said. "It is right there in the center, and it is worse than you think. It is an attempt to settle old accounts. Americans were liberating Europe twice during the last century. This is something the Europeans won't forgive, and not just the Germans."
This is an amazing insight into what motivates European anti-US criticism and illustrates the worst in human nature. This quote effectively admits that very many Yourapeons would actually rather be murdering boot licking Fascist collectivists than to promote human rights and individual freedoms.
643. PelleNilsson - 11/9/2002 9:20:05 AM
From the same article:
While there's much dwelling on the differences, polls show that American and European attitudes are closer than one might think. In September, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund surveyed a total of 10,000 Americans and Europeans in six nations. They found more agreement than disagreement in areas such as perceptions of threats, attitudes toward NATO and globalization.
The poll, conducted in the summer, showed that Europeans like Americans as much as they like each other. Britons felt warmest toward Americans, the survey found. Germans and Poles felt coolest.
In October, when the British pollster MORI sampled attitudes about the American people, 81 percent said they liked them - up from 69 percent in 1989, the last time the firm put the question. There's less love of the American administration, however.
644. TabouliJones - 11/11/2002 5:17:01 PM
I finished David Fromkin'sA Peace to End all Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, the other day. This is an excellent history of British, French, Russian and German activity in the Middle East between 1914-1922 -- with the accent placed heavily on Britain's shifting military fortunes and foreign policy objectives in the area. I am too lazy to do a proper summary, so I will only recommend it to anyone interested in either British WWI history or the details and immediate consequences of the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
My recommendation is subject to two (really, quite minor) reservations: 1) I would have preferred an additional 100 or more pages going into more thorough detail about how the 1922 settlement of the "Middle Eastern question" as then understood resonated throughout the rest of the century (the book ends rather abruptly with the various treaties, agreements and arrangements of 1922, and does little to back up the oft asserted claim that the settlement as a whole resulted in the problems and tensions that have plagued the region ever since); and 2) although I thoroughly enjoyed the British slant, I would have also liked to have seen more about the various ethnic, tribal and religious realities endemic to the area during the time period (Fromkin asserts often that the British did not truly comprehend the region, but does not describe the region's internal realities in any great detail). As I said, however, these are minor reservations -- other books can be read to supplement Fromkin's excellent history.
645. TabouliJones - 11/11/2002 5:19:13 PM
I am thinking of reading something by Bernard Lewis next. As always, recommendations are much appreciated.
646. PelleNilsson - 11/11/2002 6:22:22 PM
The things that worry us:
647. thoughtful - 11/11/2002 7:22:20 PM
So in general, Europeans are more laid-back? US needs anxiety therapy?
648. concerned - 11/11/2002 7:27:04 PM
Re. 647 -
Except that Europe could chill some more on global warming:) OTOH, regarding economics, it would seem reasonable that some concern about the US's competitiveness would be warranted.
649. PelleNilsson - 11/11/2002 9:32:32 PM
thoughtful
I have pondered the issue (I have been much given to pondering lately). Obviously, the trauma of 9/11 comes in here. But I also think that the average American is much less exposed to the world outside than the average European. 'Abroad' is a confusing world with a bewildering proliferation of small countries with strange names, strange tongues and strange customs which have not (yet) seen the light in the form of the American way of life, in particular clean toilets.
650. TabouliJones - 11/11/2002 10:44:14 PM
thoughtful and Pelle,
My guess is that the historical prevalence of terrorism and political upheaval in Europe and Asia, relative to the U.S., and the attendant media focus over the years has caused Europeans to grow somewhat more inured to the potential threat of such matters to personal and national interests. Europeans have had more time to get used to these things, than those of us in N. America. Plus (as Pelle pointed out), 9/11 and an apparently tightening terrorist focus on American targets in the last year or so, has naturally heightened anxiety with respect to the issue in the U.S. That is just a guess, mind you.
I was actually more surprised by the disparity in European and U.S. rankings with respect to the importance of reducing immigration and refugee levels. Both numbers strike me as high, but I would have guessed that Europeans would have evinced greater anxiety on that front -- given the apparently greater politicization of immigration issues in Europe. I assume this misperception has much to do with the fact that N. American media tends to only provide a snapshot of European political matters and tneds to trumpet the more controversial political figures.
651. PelleNilsson - 11/12/2002 8:13:46 PM
I, too, am surprised at the response on immigration. It certainly goes against one's preconceived opinion on the subject.
652. thoughtful - 11/12/2002 8:47:01 PM
Or perhaps it's simply that Europeans drink more wine than americans.
;-)
653. charleselliot - 11/15/2002 1:27:02 PM
"We warned Australia before not to join in [the war] in Afghanistan, and [against] its despicable effort to separate East Timor. It ignored the warning until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali." Excerpts from Bin Laden Message.
Told ya so!
654. transient1a - 11/15/2002 5:04:04 PM
Recently, I came across this commentary, A New World Order,
by David Deutsch, Israeli born winner of the 1998 Paul Drac Medal and Prize for fundamental work on a mathematical model for quantum computing.
His analysis, although over 1 year old and far from complete or even handed or compliant with historical grievences, clearly and cleanly comments on the course of action the US has chosen and why that course of action was/is required.
(By the way, don't let his credentials sway you into buying his book, The Fabric of Reality (1998) -- it is not worth reading.)
655. concerned - 11/17/2002 8:32:15 AM
US canceling nuclear treaty due to North Korean violations
656. concerned - 11/17/2002 6:58:39 PM
Gerhard Schröder's rocky new start
The Schröder government has violated its campaign pledges not to seek increases in taxes and 'contributions' in record time. Given the already extortionately high 'non wage labor costs', I can readily see where this would be an overriding issue with German wage-earners.
657. concerned - 11/19/2002 6:30:02 PM
Islam's Wretched Record on Slavery
Here's news for NOI Farrakhonman:
There are notable differences between the slave trade in the Islamic world and the trans-Atlantic variety. The former has been going on for 13 centuries and it is an integral feature of the Islamic civilization, while the influx of slaves into the New World lasted less than a third that long and was effectively ended by the middle of the 19th century.
Just over ten million Africans were taken to the Americas during that period, while the number of captives taken to the heartlands of Islam - while impossible to establish with precision - is many times greater. Nevertheless, there are tens of millions of descendants of slaves in the Americas, and practically none in the Moslem world outside Africa. For all its horrors, the Atlantic slave trade took place within a capitalistic context in which slaves were expensive pieces of property not to be destroyed. In the Moslem world slaves were considerably cheaper, far more widely available, and regarded as a dispensable commodity. They were effectively worked to death, and thus left no descendants.
658. concerned - 11/19/2002 10:21:40 PM
Can anybody say 'r-e-p-a-r-a-t-i-o-n-s' from Muslims?
659. jexster - 11/21/2002 8:33:54 PM
OH CANADA!!!!
Canadian official allegedly calls Bush 'a moron' over Iraq
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
A senior Canadian official in Prague allegedly branded U.S. President George W. Bush "a moron" at the NATO meetings in the Czech Republic, reportedly for his attempts to drum up support for an attack on Iraq, a report said Friday.
"What a moron," Post reporter Robert Fife quoted the official as saying in reference to the U.S. president.
Canadian officials said they were investigating to see if the report quoting the remarks was credible.
Chretien, meanwhile, danced around the issue when asked for comment.
"He's not a moron at all, he's a friend. My personal relations with the president are extremely good," Chretien said, according to the Canadian Press.
The report came after Canada's Defence Minister John McCallum this week urged Bush stay out of Canada's business regarding military spending.
McCallum made the remarks after Bush said some Western countries were not spending enough on their armed forces.
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
660. robertjayb - 11/21/2002 11:20:53 PM
Outrageous oppression in New Zealand...
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) -- No knitting in Parliament. Not by government ministers overseeing debates, anyway.
The new rule was announced after Associate Commerce Minister Judith Tizard pulled out knitting needles and wool while lawmakers debated a trade bill Thursday.
661. alistairconnor - 11/22/2002 6:34:39 PM
Well Judith is a family friend so I suppose I should leap to her defense. But I've always found her a rather tepid and ineffectual politician. So the knitting business doesn't surprise me.
662. joezan - 11/23/2002 11:07:02 PM
Number 1 in Germany, with a bullet.
(I wonder if Schroeder will sue this guy, too):
Ode to Schroeder:
BERLIN (Reuters) - It's a satirical song that has captured
the hearts of a betrayed nation fed up with broken election promises, higher taxes and a never-ending squeeze on government services.
"Promises that were made yesterday can be broken today," sings Brandt in a voice identical to Schroeder's. "I'll raise your taxes, I'll empty your pockets, every one of you nerds stashes some cash away, but I'll find it no matter where it is.
"I'll raise taxes now because the election is over and you can't fire me now," continue the lyrics which disparage Schroeder as immoral for lying to win re-election.
"We could raise a 'bad weather tax', or an 'earth-surface usage tax', a levy for breathing, air's going to become more expensive, and I'm only getting started," he sings. "A tooth tax for chewing, bio tax for digestion -- nothing's free anymore."
663. jexster - 11/24/2002 3:35:51 AM
Meet the Father of NK's Nukes - Pervez Busharraf
Used a US C-130 last July for a shipment!
HELP THERE's a MORON on the loose!
664. wonkers2 - 11/24/2002 4:55:31 AM
The NZ parliamentarians must be pretty insecure in their masculinity.
665. concerned - 11/24/2002 11:22:27 PM
Who will be the one who will carry the mark of the beast?
Muwahahaha!
666. alistairconnor - 11/25/2002 10:20:54 PM
Pitcairn rights denied
Green MP Keith Locke remains unconvinced that trials regarding sex offending on Pitcairn Island should be held in New Zealand.
Mr Locke (along with New Zealand First member Ron Mark) has appended a minority report to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade select committees commentary on the Pitcairn Trials Bill, which was reported back to Parliament today.
“All the public evidence we heard, both written and oral, was against the bill. We were assured by both the Mayor of Pitcairn, Steve Christian, and the Pitcairn public defender, Paul Dacre, that all Pitcairn residents were in favour of any trials being held on the island.
“They argued that any practical problems to holding the trials on the island could be overcome. The islanders have experience in hosting large groups, and new accommodation facilities have recently been built, plus a detention bloc. The British government indicated that a video conferencing facility would be available, so that New Zealand-based witnesses could give evidence without travelling overseas.
“Having trials on Pitcairn would ensure that two basic rules of justice apply, that people should be tried in the country where the offences are committed, and that the hearings be in front of the people of that country.
“Denying Pitcairners the ability to have trials there would also be contrary to our commitment to a people’s right to self-determination. Pitcairn is on the UN list of non-self governing territories, requiring the colonial power to assist Pitcairn people towards greater self-government.
“I understand the Pitcairn people are taking a complaint to the United Nations in regard to trials being shifted to New Zealand against their will. No Pitcairner was even consulted before the British and New Zealand governments agreed on a treaty and legislation for New Zealand-based trials.
[...]
667. alistairconnor - 11/25/2002 10:21:25 PM
“I also take seriously the wish of many Pitcairners for a Truth and Reconciliation process. As we discovered in South Africa this can be a community healing process for important historic problems. As we also saw in South Africa this doesn’t rule out subsequent trials for serious offences, and offenders being brought to book.
“There is serious concern that having New Zealand as the trial venue could fatally undermine the island community, which is less than 50 strong.
“These are serious allegations and we are also concerned that the alleged victims are receiving appropriate support. However, a solution with both allows victims to see justice being done, and enables the community to survive and prosper, is in the best interests of everyone,” said Mr Locke.
668. concerned - 11/26/2002 8:37:40 AM
The Real Revolutionaries
excerpt:
"Freedom," "justice," "progress"—those are catchphrases the left should never have been allowed to steal. But they are still noble ideals, ready to be taken up by the brave young revolutionaries in Iran—and by anyone in the West who takes action to support their cause.
669. jexster - 11/27/2002 5:33:00 PM
From the Financial Times
Jorg Haider, the central figure in Austria's Freedom party, left the political stage (again) this week, a failure. His party had lost almost two-thirds of the 27 per cent of the vote it achieved three years ago: it is split, leaderless, disoriented - largely because of him.
But Mr Haider leaves behind a kind of success. The anti-immigrant tide of which he was the first wave has broken all over Europe and the parties of the populist right still goad the politicians of the centre into imposing restrictions for fear of losing their - especially -working- and lower-middle-class base. Liberals of any kind have not mourned the passing of a politician who flirted with Nazism and anti-Semitism but they must cope with the popular fears on which he rode.
And if Mr Haider's party is floundering, others are not. The Swiss People's party, led by the businessman Christoph Blocher, almost won a referendum it had called for, on the issue of banning all except relatively wealthy asylum-seekers from Switzerland - one of the richest countries on earth. "We were on our own," said Mr Blocher, euphoric after the vote on Sunday, voicing the common, anti-establishment theme of all the populist parties, "against the cabinet, all the other parties and the media - and yet we finally lost only by a handful of votes." Elsewhere in Europe, populism still surges. The October conference of the Danish People's party was an exultant affair of a vastly successful grouping that had risen to become third party in the elections of the previous November. Under the banner of Et Frik Danmark (A Free Denmark), it gave the country notice that it would make it free: free from too much immigration, free from too much Europe.
670. jexster - 11/27/2002 5:33:31 PM
"These two things, Europe and immigration, were the reason this party was created," says Soeren Espersen, the party's media manager and its chief ideologist. Mr Espersen, like the rest of the party's seniors, from the "housewife leader" Pia Kjaersgaard down, comes across as media-friendly and moderate. But he likes mischief, stirring people up, being an outsider. He does stunts, such as giving away plastic gloves with the slogan "These gloves are to protect you against the euro". (He had read that the coins had a high nickel content.) He took out an advertisement in a Swedish newspaper with a picture of Ms Kjaersgaard, saying "Thank you for your support", after Goran Persson, Sweden's social democratic premier, attacked the People's party for its policies on immigration.
"We had hundreds and hundreds of e-mails," says Mr Espersen happily, "all saying 'Keep up the good work' and 'If only we could have some of your laws'. The Swedish anti-immigrant party (the Democrats) was kept out of public debate. They didn't have much of a chance. It was very hard to get the editor-in-chief of Dagens Nyheter (which published the DPP advert) to take it.
"Sweden," he adds, warming to his theme, "is not really a free country like Denmark. It went straight from a monarchical dictatorship to rule by the social democrats. They haven't our tradition of free speech."
671. jexster - 11/27/2002 5:34:50 PM
Tell me about it.
672. jexster - 11/27/2002 5:34:54 PM
Tell me about it.
673. PelleNilsson - 11/27/2002 6:38:27 PM
That is a moronic statement not worth responding to. Let me just note that (a) we had an episode of "monarchial dictatorship 1680-1720, (b) the social democratic party was founded in the 1880s, and (c) it first came into government in 1933. Esperson's statement is just as stupid as would be my saying that the Danish mindset is determined by the fact that serfdom prevailed in Denmark until well into the 18th century, while it never did exist in Sweden where the farmers were free and represented in parliament from the 16th century.
674. jexster - 11/27/2002 7:44:07 PM
Kong Kristian stod ved højen mast
675. Marc-Albert - 11/29/2002 12:14:44 AM
I've been leisurely reading La Garde-Chambonas' recollection of the Congress of Vienna for a while and I was astouned to read earlier on that, quite late in the 18th century, a Swedish king had his Queen, along with her lover, beheaded then and there. Or was that in Denmark?
One tend to think of Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland as places where democracy and human rights have been flourishing for at least a millenium. Yet, the last time a "witch" was burnt at stake in Europe was in a Swiss canton..... in 1784. Poor Catherine II and Joseph II nearly had a fit when they heard the news.
676. stostosto - 11/29/2002 1:02:31 AM
Marc-Albert
there was a famous episode in Denmark in 1772 when the queen's lover, who was also the king's physician, was executed and cut in pieces. His name was Struensee, he was of German origin, and there was a lot more to him than simply fornication. He had actually been the de facto ruler of the kingdom for three years. The king, who at that time held absolute power, was certifiably mad (probably schizophrenic), and Struensee won his confidence and used it for issuing a frenzy of laws, all in the spirit of the enlightenment. He even got the king to authorise Struensee's signature on laws in lieu of the king's own.
By all accounts Struensee was an extraordinary and idealistic man who staged this de facto coup d'etat in order to realise the political ideas of the Enlightenment.
It wasn't the king who had Struensee beheaded, he eventually became the victim of a counter coup by some other players at the court.
The queen (very young, only 22 I think) wasn't executed either, she was exiled to somewhere in Germany where she died shortly after. She was English, btw, a close relative to the English king. There are still speculations that she may have been poisoned by Danish agents.
You can read a little (very little) about this episode here.
If you are intrigued by such quaint occurrences and like historical fiction, I warmly recommend this: 
Click on image
Per Olov Enquist is a fine Swedish writer.
677. stostosto - 11/29/2002 1:10:48 AM
Regarding Haider, I am pleased he was creamed.
It's funny how the Danish People's Party are dragged into that Financial Times piece, but not unjustified, I guess. Their leadership actually made a trip to Austria in 2000 and wanted to meet Haider, but he refused to see them -- on the grounds that they were bad company. And they were, on some counts: Their anti-immigrant proposals went a good deal further than Haider's. Actually, the former Danish government's policy was harsher than what Haider was advocating at the time (a fact that he pointed out in public, much to Danish governmental embarrassment). And that government, unlike the present one, didn't rely on the votes of the DPP. Now, we've gone from tight to super-tight. And no one is thinking of going back.
678. pseudoerasmus - 11/29/2002 5:53:04 PM
I recently read in a newspaper on line that the theme song of the most recent James Bond movie was composed by one Mirwais Ahmedzai, a name which is as Pashtun as it could get. So I looked up his name on the Web, and this is what I found:
"Mirwais Ahmadzai is keyboard player and producer of Madonna's album 'Music'. On the picture to the left you see Mirwais (to the right) perform on a Nord Lead 2 with Madonna at the MTV Europe Music Awards show in Stockholm on November 16, 2000."
[clickable photo]
I think this is hilarious!
679. pseudoerasmus - 11/29/2002 5:59:24 PM
errata: '.....composed by Madonna with one Mirwais Ahmedzai as keyboard player...'
680. Marc-Albert - 11/29/2002 10:10:56 PM
Struensee and Brandt being "broken and quartered"
Sto, thanks for the info on Struensee. It did wet my apetite though and I've been looking on the web for more tidbits. Here is some more for those who are, as you said, intrigued by such quaint occurences.
Chacun peut tout écrire, et sifle qui voudra (Anyone may write what he wants and let he who will grumble)
A decree of September 14, 1770 abolished censorship. Voltaire was elated. Struensee had the congratulatory letter he wrote to the king published in French and Danish. 
681. Andonly - 12/1/2002 5:17:49 PM
"I think this is hilarious!"
I'm at a loss. It's funny that Madonna's keyboard player is a Pashtun?
Hell, there have been times when I wondered if you were Madonna's keyboard player.
682. PelleNilsson - 12/2/2002 7:03:24 PM
There are elections in (on?) Greenland today. The big question is independence. The plan seems to be that the US will pay for it trough the leases of the Thule base and the coming radar site for the missile defence system.
683. joezan - 12/2/2002 7:30:36 PM
FWIW, Elton John says Madonna's JB theme is the absolute worst - a disgrace.
684. marjoribanks - 12/3/2002 3:19:46 PM
Madonna has a long history of associating herself with girly/homosexual ethnic types. remember that whole 'vogue' mini-phenomenon? Or that ridiculously pompous flash-in-the-pan Harvard grad, Alex Keshishian, who made that stupid movie by following her around on a tour?
This Pashtun is simply the latest to be embroiled in the no-talent express.
685. marjoribanks - 12/3/2002 3:25:31 PM
More surprising, to me anyway, is this Pathan fellow (conveniently named Pathan) who is on the verge of playing regularly for India's cricket team.
686. jexster - 12/3/2002 4:51:56 PM
This should bring on a case of hives for TDaschole....
Bush Ill Prepared for Most Important Long-Term Development in World Politics - The Rise of China
[said to be nearing plans to colonize Mars - Concerned}
687. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2002 4:52:24 PM
Hi marj! Long time.
688. Marc-Albert - 12/3/2002 6:54:42 PM
The cacophony on this thread is at times deafening.
689. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2002 7:01:04 PM
Indeed.
693. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2002 9:45:19 PM
#690-692 moved to Religion.
694. concerned - 12/4/2002 12:04:21 AM
Pelle -
You're doing a wonderful impression of an irascible lout.
695. concerned - 12/4/2002 12:32:40 AM
See Message # 18917 in thread 145 for the very politically topical post and its follow ups that Pelle abruptly decided to move to the religion thread.
I can pretty much predict that, sooner or later, someone will come along and post something in International being more related to religion that what I've done, and nobody will lift a finger about it.
696. robertjayb - 12/4/2002 1:06:25 AM
So sad to be unloved...and we try so hard...
A major survey of global public opinion has found increasing anti-Americanism.
" People around the world both embrace things American and decry US influence on their societies "
The trend is most dramatic in Muslim societies, and some of the strongest anti-Americanism is in Egypt and Pakistan, according to the study by the US-based Pew Research Center.
697. concerned - 12/4/2002 1:10:49 AM
Try not to let it ruin your life, rjb. We wouldn't want you to lose your sense of perspective, now.
698. sakonige - 12/4/2002 4:16:44 AM
It's already ruining his way of life. What do you think all the intrusive homeland security measures are for if not to protect Americans from the increasing numbers of people who hate them?
699. Marc-Albert - 12/4/2002 5:04:52 AM
Those type of surveys IMO are next to worthess, as they are based on subjective, non-measurable, non-comparable variables.
Just look at the results concerning satisfaction about own country. The summary says that Canada is the only country in the West where a majority (56%) express satisfaction with their own country. But that's still lower than in Mexico (59%).
Then, you have a wooping 69% of Uzbecks (???) and Vietnamese (???) who express satisfaction with own country...
And Pakistan's level of national satisfaction is 49%, higher than any western country except Canada.
Now what sort of credibility should I give to a survey that says the inhabitants of a bloody mess such as Pakistan are more satisfied about their own country than, say, all the Europeans.
Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Pakistan, the new Shangri-Las. At least we can take those three off our foreign aid list.
700. Marc-Albert - 12/4/2002 5:13:54 AM
This is better and more complete than robertjays' BBC thing.
701. concerned - 12/4/2002 6:33:03 AM
Zimbabwe - Socialistic proof that hell can exist without religion.
702. concerned - 12/4/2002 6:40:42 AM
Nominate Mugabe for the Nobel Appease Prize!
703. concerned - 12/4/2002 6:55:38 AM
Anybody wondering what Ian Smith's take might be on current Zimbabwe developments?
Just wondering out loud.
704. concerned - 12/4/2002 6:58:15 AM
Heck, I wish godlessclif would pop in to offer his opinion.
705. concerned - 12/4/2002 7:01:03 AM
How 'bout you, Sak? Look, they really taught whitey a lesson they won't soon forget in Zim, didn't they?
706. concerned - 12/4/2002 7:10:26 AM
Just a little unfortunate that taking revenge on whitebread winds up hurting the Zimbabweans a thousand times more. But what the hey, huh, Sak? Means....end. Good deal. Screw the consequences.
707. sakonige - 12/4/2002 4:13:06 PM
I do like the way humans return to their natural shape when the pressure to conform is removed. Some would interpret that as a belief in the Noble Savage, but it isn't in the sense Rousseau meant. His noble savages were nice, mine are simply natural.
708. marjoribanks - 12/4/2002 4:25:49 PM
Now what sort of credibility should I give to a survey that says the inhabitants of a bloody mess such as Pakistan are more satisfied about their own country than, say, all the Europeans.
I wouldn't be nearly so dismissive of the poll results as this sentence implies. Countries like Pakistan and India are peopled with citizens who are still enamoured by nationalist ideologies while those in Europe may be moving towards what Pseuder has dubbed post-nationalist mindsets. It is entirely possible that Pakis can overlook the political bog to express satisfaction in the very existence of the nation that the Qaid-i-islam fought for. Certainly Indians are no different.
709. marjoribanks - 12/4/2002 4:27:07 PM
Greetings Pelle.
I am, generally speaking, around. Ridiculously busy, but I do monitor this thread out of habit and have no plans to desist.
710. alistairconnor - 12/4/2002 5:00:51 PM
um....
Ditto.
711. theDiva - 12/4/2002 5:05:33 PM
Banks, off topic here, but I must thank you again for pointing me towards Mistry. I finished 'Family Matters' over the weekend...enchanting, beautiful, poignant book. I could scarcely put it down.
712. concerned - 12/4/2002 6:57:34 PM
Re. 707 -
So, where do you see cultural evolution of your 'naturals' taking them, long term? That is, if you believe in such a thing.
713. sakonige - 12/4/2002 8:04:43 PM
Message # 712
I don't know. I'm just glad the outcome is being driven by forces of nature rather than by human design, even if that means a drastic reduction in the number of humans on the planet. I have faith in mother nature's ability to make the right choices.
714. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2002 8:49:03 PM
"Mother nature" has a soul? A will of its own?
715. concerned - 12/4/2002 11:23:06 PM
Sakonige -
Have you ever considered this? How about if Western society becomes so technologically advanced that we colonize space and return earth to its primeval conditions before mankind ever colonized the Americas? Isn't that better yet?
716. concerned - 12/5/2002 1:21:21 AM
717. sakonige - 12/5/2002 3:34:02 AM
PelleNilsson -
No, that's not what I said.
I'm an atheist who does not attribute any "free will" or "soul" to natural processes. I'm only pointing out that natural processes ultimately determine the fate of humanity, not the other way round.
718. sakonige - 12/5/2002 3:34:43 AM
concerned -
Dream on. Personally, I don't think humans are smart enough to last that long. Species come and go, and this one is already way overdrawn.
719. concerned - 12/5/2002 7:57:13 AM
Re. 718 -
Are you so sure about that? Physically modern humans have existed for 100,000 years already. In fact, it is widely considered that most changes amonst them (us) have been memetic and behavioral, not strongly genetically linked, throughout this period. We're talking people here who would, on the average, not notably stand out in a crowd in some part of the world today.
Prior to that, a relatively 'recent' direct ancestor of ours, Homo Erectus, whose fossils have been found throughout Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, have continuously inhabited some of those regions for nearly a million years.
720. concerned - 12/5/2002 8:08:36 AM
The AIDS Vaccine Nobody Wants
As a side note, what clearer indication could be wanted that most of Sub-Sahara Africa's suffering is due to their unintelligentsia's trendy Leftist Neo-Marxist anti-Colonialist groupthink?
721. concerned - 12/6/2002 7:50:28 AM
From the WP. King Abdullah II of Jordon on Islamism. Funny now similar his opinion is to mine.
The True Voice of Islam
By King Abdullah II of Jordan
Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A25
AMMAN -- This week marks the end of the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims throughout the world take time to reflect upon the values of our faith: compassion, goodwill and respect for others. These are core ideals in Islam, the faith that my family, the Hashemites, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him, has served for 40 generations. Our religion calls us to live and work for justice and to promote tolerance. Daily, we share God's blessing: Salaam Aleikum --"Peace be upon you."
This is the true voice of Islam, but it is not the voice that Americans always hear. Instead, they hear the hatred spewed by groups mistakenly called Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, there is nothing fundamentally Islamic about these extremists. They are religious totalitarians, in a long line of extremists of various faiths who seek power by intimidation, violence and thuggery.
Extremists violently reject the original moderation and openness of Islam -- qualities that made the Muslim world the historical home of diversity and learning. Nor does their violence constitute "jihad," or holy war. The Prophet Muhammad tells us that the "greater" holy war is not against others at all but against one's own failings -- the "war against the ego." Moreover, in a famous speech, the Prophet's follower and first successor, Abu Bakr, commanded Muslim soldiers: "Do not betray, do not deceive, do not bludgeon and maim, do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor an old man . . . do not burn, do not cut down a fruit tree. . . . If you come across communities who have consecrated themselves to the [Christian church], leave them."
722. concerned - 12/6/2002 7:51:01 AM
These words are part of the most basic religious education that Arab and Muslim schoolchildren receive. I know, because I was one of them. So when today's terrorists target innocents, they provide direct evidence of their real agenda: power politics, not religion. In fact, long before so-called Islamic terrorists began attacking the West, they were targeting fellow Muslims. The goal was to silence opposition and obliterate the Islam of peace and dialogue. I carry the name of my great-grandfather, Abdullah I, who was assassinated by an extremist. In the same attack, my father, then age 15, was hit by a bullet. He survived, and as King Hussein became a great peacemaker. He always believed a real leader stands up against the forces of destruction.
723. concerned - 12/6/2002 7:54:22 AM
Note to Pelle:
If you feel that you simply must consign the last two posts to Religion, regardless of the lack of propriety
associated with doing so, be a good boy and provide a link to them, would you?
-TIA
--concerned
724. concerned - 12/6/2002 8:30:17 AM
Al Qaeda contacts journalists
excerpt:
Bin Laden needs contacts in the independent media to spread his message and terrorize the West, but since 1997, when he first began granting interviews, he has limited his contacts to a select few, including Robert Fisk of the Independent of London, and Peter Bergen of CNN.
Fisk is even more of a flagitious miscreant than I had believed.
Thought I heard that voice analysis of the last recording touted by Al Qaeda to be bin Laden showed that it was another person entirely.
725. concerned - 12/6/2002 6:54:50 PM
She definitely wouldn't have a dirty sand monkey like Muhammad.
726. pseudoerasmus - 12/6/2002 7:16:42 PM
What is the similarity between King Abdullah's views and Concerned's? I do not see the slightest simliarity.
727. concerned - 12/6/2002 7:29:28 PM
This is Islam:
...the values of our faith: compassion, goodwill and respect for others. These are core ideals in Islam, the faith that my family, the Hashemites, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon Him, has served for 40 generations. Our religion calls us to live and work for justice and to promote tolerance.
Not the rhetoric of the likes of Al Qaeda or most Middle Eastern Imams.
728. concerned - 12/6/2002 7:42:20 PM
I just want to say that Pelle is not too bad a thread administrator, although a bit whingey at times. And everybody knows I like to 'fun' people from the Left sometimes.
729. Wombat - 12/7/2002 4:12:34 AM
Unless King Abdullah feels that Mohammed is a "dirty sand monkey," which I rather doubt, given that Abdullah claims direct descent from Mohammed, his views and Concerned's views on Islam cannot possibly be in agreement.
730. wonkers2 - 12/7/2002 5:41:17 AM
Judging from the new Miss World, Turkey won't make it into the EU where armpit hair is a requirement.
731. concerned - 12/7/2002 5:57:25 AM
Rd. 729 -
I was merely making light of Mohammed in much the same way it was recently fashionable to consider Jesus Christ a homosexual, etc.
732. concerned - 12/7/2002 6:58:54 AM
Ok. Perhaps the 'monkey' part was egregious. But, let's face facts. Given how dusty and dry much of the Mideast Jesus Christ was probably also pretty filthy a lot of the time.
733. concerned - 12/7/2002 6:59:34 AM
...the Mideast is...
734. Wombat - 12/8/2002 12:18:06 AM
If you made any more light of Mohammed's alleged foibles than you have been since you discovered whatever anti-moslem sites you have been quoting for the last few weeks, the light would rival the that of the sun.
735. magoseph - 12/8/2002 1:37:23 AM
Judging from the new Miss World, Turkey won't make it into the EU where armpit hair is a requirement.
When was the last time you were in Europe and were able to look up armpits, Won?
736. jexster - 12/8/2002 5:06:06 PM
Looks as if we have an annex to an Axis of Evil
Anger Against US Boils in South Korea
737. jexster - 12/8/2002 5:18:03 PM
The danger of the Bush doctrine is really broader than that. The reach of the doctrine, and its dangers, were well described in an article in Foreign Affairs by Professor G. John Ikenberry of Georgetown University. The grand strategy, he wrote, "is a general depreciation of international rules, treaties, and security partnerships."[*] Yet it was those very relationships that have so benefited this country since World War II. "The secret of the United States' long brilliant run as the world's leading state," Professor Ikenberry wrote,
was its ability and willingness to exercise power within alliance and multinational frameworks, which made its power and agenda more acceptable to allies and other key states around the world.
He warned that
"unchecked US power, shorn of legitimacy and disentangled from the postwar norms and institutions of the international order, will usher in a more hostile international system, making it far harder to achieve American interests."
What we may be seeing in the Iraq strategy, then, is the rejection of the old American view that, as Professor Ikenberry put it,
"a rule-based international order, especially one in which the United States uses its political weight to derive congenial rules, will most fully protect American interests, conserve its power, and extend its influence. "
The key phrase in that formulation is "rule-based." For President Bush has shown, across the board, an unwillingness for his country or himself to be bound by the rules. Anthony Lewis, New York Review of Books
738. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 5:06:09 PM
I've commented in this thread about the surprising prevailing climate which has emboldened cartoonishly stupid right wingers to bleat incessantly about Muslims, Arabs, the Koran and Islam.
Our representative here, with his grotesque idiocies on these topics, is only aping Falwell and his ilk, comments the USadministration has been wise to immediately and forcefully distance itself from. If there is one good thing about Bush and his handling of post-9/11 America it has been his posture (I believe, sincere) towards Islam and Muslims.
739. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 5:08:45 PM
Our resident C.S.R-W has earned another letter in his title, the R for Racist.
Henceforth, if called for, I shall be using the short-form c.s.r.r-w.
740. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 5:27:55 PM
Fareed zakaria wrote an excellent piece in Newsweek on the topic of American extremists, here.
One of the most troubling realities of the Muslim world today is the cowardice of moderates. Mainstream Muslim leaders—political and religious—do not condemn religious extremism often enough and vigorously enough. As a result, fundamentalists gain courage and their poisonous views go unchallenged.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE SAME phenomenon appears to be at work now with America’s own homegrown fundamentalists. Last week Jerry Falwell announced on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that Muhammad was “a terrorist.” (Falwell has subsequently—and unconvincingly—claimed that he meant no harm). His comments are part of a trend. At various points Pat Roberston has called Muhammad “a robber and a brigand” and described Islam as “a monumental scam.” Billy Graham’s son Franklin has chimed in as well, frequently calling Islam “a very evil and wicked religion.”
While there have been scattered condemnations from editorials here and there, there has been silence from the White House and most mainstream political and religious leaders. Commentators who froth at the mouth when they read of one crackpot mullah in Egypt saying noxious things about Christians or Jews are now silent. Forget about Islamic moderates for a moment; where are America’s moderates?
741. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 5:36:31 PM
More from the Zakaria piece:
For the fundamentalists, September 11 solved an urgent problem. Over the past decade they have been searching for enemies. Their old ones—abortion-rights advocates and homosexuals—have not proved as useful as they had been, because Americans have become more tolerant on social issues.
Newsweek.MSNBC.com
Click on a section below for more News:
• National News
• World News
• Business & Money
• Technology & Health
• Lifestyle & Family
• Entertainment
• Opinion
• Live Talk Lineup
• The Tip Sheet
• Periscope & Conventional Wisdom
• International Editions
• Cover Story
SPECIAL SECTIONS
• Campaign 2002
• 9/11: One Year Later Immediately after September 11, Falwell and Robertson decided to use the tragedy to fire up their flock. In a joint appearance on national television, Falwell blamed the attacks on “the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen’.” Robertson concurred.
Other fundamentalists joined in. Billy Graham’s daughter Anne Graham Lotz told CBS’s Jane Clayson on Sept. 13, 2001, that the tragedy took place because “Americans ... have shaken their fists at God and said, ‘God, we want you out of our government... our business ... our marketplace’.” All this backfired. In the next few weeks the preachers were roundly condemned by hundreds of organizations, newspapers, magazines and politicians—including President Bush. Falwell and Robertson backed down, issuing apologies and claiming disingenuously to have been quoted out of context. Since then, they have stopped peddling that particular brand of intolerance. In Muslims, they have found an easier target.
742. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 5:37:46 PM
Sorry about that.
reposted: For the fundamentalists, September 11 solved an urgent problem. Over the past decade they have been searching for enemies. Their old ones—abortion-rights advocates and homosexuals—have not proved as useful as they had been, because Americans have become more tolerant on social issues. Immediately after September 11, Falwell and Robertson decided to use the tragedy to fire up their flock. In a joint appearance on national television, Falwell blamed the attacks on “the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen’.” Robertson concurred.
Other fundamentalists joined in. Billy Graham’s daughter Anne Graham Lotz told CBS’s Jane Clayson on Sept. 13, 2001, that the tragedy took place because “Americans ... have shaken their fists at God and said, ‘God, we want you out of our government... our business ... our marketplace’.” All this backfired. In the next few weeks the preachers were roundly condemned by hundreds of organizations, newspapers, magazines and politicians—including President Bush. Falwell and Robertson backed down, issuing apologies and claiming disingenuously to have been quoted out of context. Since then, they have stopped peddling that particular brand of intolerance. In Muslims, they have found an easier target.
743. joezan - 12/9/2002 5:57:33 PM
So.
Mssr's Zakaria and Banks want to compare the failure of moderate Christians to confront Falwell et al on anti-Islam statements they have made that have resulted in exactly nothing, with the failure of "moderate" Muslims to confront and chastise those within their ranks who daily spew anti-Christian/American/Jewish statements that have directly resulted in the deaths of thousands all over the world, and created a mania the likes of which has not been seen in centuries.
Peddle that crap somewhere else, Banks.
744. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 6:10:38 PM
The FBI says hate crimes against people who appear to be Muslim rose by more than 1,500 percent last year.
The top U.S. crime-fighting agency reported on Monday that incidents targeting Muslims, Sikhs and people of Middle Eastern descent jumped from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001.
There is little functional difference between a mullah who preaches hate in a mosque and Falwell and Zan's other fundamentalist brethren who do it on CNN or from their pulpits.
745. concerned - 12/9/2002 6:20:47 PM
Re. 739 -
Marjoribunk, you moron.
Islam is not about race, any more than Naziism is. And you seem quite comfortable with both of those, you reflexive bigot.
Your 'reasoning' as such, classifies you as a racist, also, since you have been pleased to call people of ethnic groups other than yourself 'chimps'.
Btw, I'm still laughing at your simple minded foolishness at being sucked into the Israeli spy scam and repeatedly throwing away your credibility wrt your simple minded rationalization for gun grabbing in the wake of 9/11 and your laughable preumption that the DC Sniper was a right-winger.
You are a very foolish person, a demented Left Wing Bigot, and show little sign of ever being able to rise above the partisan gutter.
746. marjoribanks - 12/9/2002 6:51:35 PM
The c.s.r.r-w is even more cartoonishly stupid than we thought if he thinks that idiocies about "dirty sand monkeys" somehow pass for comment on" Islam".
I'm considering requesting a suspension of the c.s.r.r-w, if only in order to cleanse this thread for a while, on the grounds of violation of community standards.
747. concerned - 12/9/2002 8:16:35 PM
I've pointed out a few of your manifold shortcomings and hypocrisies so you'd better request that you be suspended first, because really there is no redeeming value in your ignorant namecalling and mindless insults. It won't do to try to stir up trouble over what is history and has nothing to do with you, IAC.
748. concerned - 12/9/2002 8:21:24 PM
It's clear that Marjoribunk has great difficulties with the concept of free speech, not to mention other human rights. But that's one reason that he's a Lefty.
749. JJBiener - 12/9/2002 8:48:20 PM
Banks - There is little functional difference between a mullah who preaches hate in a mosque and Falwell and Zan's other fundamentalist brethren who do it on CNN or from their pulpits.
Really? Falwell and Robertson are routinely ridiculed by the majority of Americans including many conservative Christians. Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up innocent people in bars and restaurants because Fallwell told them to. Do you really think the increase in anti-Muslim crime is a function of Falwell spouting off on CNN? You don't think that perhaps it is a regettable and misguided response the murder of thousands of Americans by Islamic extremists? Really, Banks, your intellectual contortions are quite entertaining to read.
750. judithathome - 12/9/2002 8:52:53 PM
I would be willing to bet more than a few shots taken at abortion doctors were instigated by the likes of Falwell.
751. joezan - 12/9/2002 8:56:15 PM
Do you realize how old, tired, and discredited this anti-abortion attacks -vs- Islamic Terrorist moral equivalence crap is?
752. judithathome - 12/9/2002 8:59:04 PM
Do you think I give a rip?
Do you realize you are not the arbiter of what passes for posts around here, Sheik?
753. JJBiener - 12/9/2002 9:03:23 PM
Judith - I am in favor of prosecuting anyone who advocates violence against abortion clinics or doctors. I have never heard Falwell advocate violence, but then I try to avoid the gasbag whenever possible. While there have been many protests by pro-lifers at abortion clinics, they are almost universally peaceful. Violence is very rare.
To Banks' point, I have not seen any news footage of mobs of Christians shouting "Death to Muslims!" I don't see how the two situations are even remotely similar.
On a different subject, if students were to demonstrate in favor of exams in school, would it be a pro-test protest?
754. joezan - 12/9/2002 9:06:55 PM
judith:
Speaking of old, tired and discredited - perhaps it's time for you to take a little nappy, heh?
755. judithathome - 12/9/2002 9:07:55 PM
Perhaps it's time for you to brush up on your Henny Youngman routine...please.
756. joezan - 12/9/2002 9:21:25 PM
Henny WHO?
Must be someone from the old days.
Did he do silents?
757. judithathome - 12/9/2002 9:23:18 PM
Have a nice strong cup of Senna Tea, Jozy...you clearly need it.
758. JJBiener - 12/9/2002 9:27:04 PM
Did he do silents?
No, but there are some people I wish would.
759. concerned - 12/10/2002 5:13:22 AM
Btw, there have been several fatwahs issued against Robertson, Falwell et al, for their comments. However one feels about them, one can not make a fair comparison of Christianity and Islam or give the value of human life and freedom its due if one overlooks this predominantly atavistic characteristic of Islam as it exists, nor the related fact that most of the armed struggles in the world today involve treacherous cowardice, brutality and even genocidal behavior by Islamists who justify such by referring to certain passages in the Koran and Hadiths, something that is not possible with the Bible.
760. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 7:30:48 AM
I agree with Zan and Biener that the Marjoribanks-Zakaria comparisons are a bit silly. Even if Christians were not condemning Falwell or Robertson for their anti-Islamic rhetoric, it is not as though such behaviour merits condemnation to the same extent as the rhetoric and practise of Islamic fundamentalists.
On the larger question of Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism, I must again agree with Zan and Biener.
The application of the term "fundamentalist" to both groups obscures the fact that the two fundamentalisms are nothing like each other. The word "fundamentalist" describes the extremum of any given religious spectrum. But the entire Islamic spectrum is simply more conservative than the modern Christian spectrum.
The religiosity of the majority of Muslims whom westerners like to refer to as "moderate" or "liberal" are comparable to the religiosity of Christian fundamentalists in the West. The average observant Muslim certainly rejects evolutionary theory, certainly opposes abortion, certainly wants a religious curriculum in state education [ though these are issues only in the USA and some other western countries and not at all in Muslim countries ] and probably would like to see the basics of Islamic observance (fasting at Ramadan, ban on alcohol) enforced by law. That indicates a religiosity at the very least comparable to western Christian fundamentalists', and possibly greater.
I mention this only to give an idea of the extremism of what is meant by 'fundamentalism' within the Islamic context. Islamic fundamentalists are indeed more extreme than Christian fundamentalists because the secularisation of society in the West has moderated and modernised the attitudes of most observant Christians. Their political agenda, if realised, would simply be less oppressive than the radical Islamist agenda realised.
761. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 7:30:57 AM
In modern times there are vanishingly few instances of violence committed by Christians in the name of Christianity in order to promote a Christian religious/theocratic agenda. The few instances are such as those lunatics in the USA assassinating doctors who perform abortion or blowing up their clinics. But that's just a handful of people and instances.
In sum, the Christian fundamentalists are stupid but mostly harmless, while Islamic fundamentalists are both stupid and dangerous.
762. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 7:35:29 AM
But this statement by Concerned goes too far: "treacherous cowardice, brutality and even genocidal behavior by Islamists who justify such by referring to certain passages in the Koran and Hadiths, something that is not possible with the Bible."
So when the Church (of whatever denomination) justified slavery or burnt heretics at the stake or permitted the slaughter of unconverted natives, they must have been citing passages from the Qur'an to generate the theological justification !
763. concerned - 12/10/2002 8:05:12 AM
Re. 762 -
Thanks for your observations. I've only read the Bible once, in my teens, so my memory is rather rusty. But, I don't recall any passages therein that either promote slavery or provide guidelines or rules by which a slave is governed. Wrt 'slaughtering natives', I presume that this is rationalized as emulation of some of the behavior of the ancient Hebrews in the Old Testament; OTOH Jesus of the superceding New Testament was notable for veering in the opposite direction by 'turning the other cheek' which may not have always promoted the best survival skills, but I don't recall him as being described as having done anything more violent during his lifetime than physically ejecting moneylenders from a temple.
I'm sure it's perfectly possible for either the Koran or the Bible to be used as religious texts in religiously tolerant societies; it's just that there's notably fewer obstructions to doing so in the New Testament than any of the other writings.
764. concerned - 12/10/2002 8:09:35 AM
Uh oh. Pelle's got some reason to zap me for this one:)
Btw, my original post wrt the beauty pageant winner and Muhammad was more a twisted joke than anything; comic relief, if you will, to follow up on the murderous buffoonery in Nigeria.
765. marjoribanks - 12/10/2002 3:32:26 PM
the Christian fundamentalists are stupid but mostly harmless, while Islamic fundamentalists are both stupid and dangerous.
This is mostly true, but the reason that Christian fundamentalists are neutered lies in the politics and economies of the societies they live in - their rhetoric mirrors that of the Islamists quite closely.
I see no great functional difference between Falwell's condemnations of homosexuals and an Islamist condemnation, and even less functional difference in Pat Robertson's exhortations to the Jews to hold Jerusalem and Bin Laden's exhortations to the Muslims to seize that city.
766. jexster - 12/10/2002 3:34:27 PM
PIRACY: Yemen Wants Its Stolen Missles Back
767. marjoribanks - 12/10/2002 3:36:36 PM
We are in a historical window where Islamist rhetoric successfully rouses action from Muslim peoples disaffected by any number of factors, whereas Christian fundie rhetoric tends to be ignored except in some circles.
But in other times, Christians acted out policies of subjugation and violence in no manner different from those being pursued by Islamists today. The fact that the rhetoric of the Christian fundies is so harsh and extreme and idiotic is a warning that these fuckers should be deprived of say-so and political power just as the extremist mullahs and the bin Ladens of the world should be deprived of political power.
768. marjoribanks - 12/10/2002 3:41:48 PM
Finally, I don't know that the US far-right Christian fringe is so benign or exffectively contained.
The US is constantly picking fights with countries overseas wrt the activities of Christian fundie missionaries, small fights but real disputes nonetheless. These could easily spill into larger-scale hostilities.
But the real (current, present) cost is one that Zakaria outlines. Countries which are crucial to US actions overseas, crucial to US manoeverings, are deeply ambivalent about supporting a country where extremist Christian mullahs (extremist in rhetoric, mainstream in practice) spout off from their behinds about other religions.
769. Wombat - 12/10/2002 3:47:52 PM
It is not piracy to stop a ship on the high seas that is not flying a flag, and has its name painted over.
770. marjoribanks - 12/10/2002 3:49:49 PM
I should also note, in the spate of absurd back-slapping by the fundies here (we're less bad than the mullahs! we're less bad than the mullahs!) that Christian fundies backed by American dollars have been directly responsible for mass exterminations and the wiping out of entire indigenous peoples in the recent past.
I've referenced the great Norman Lewis's book 'The Missionaries' several times in this thread. I suggest a reading of it for the christian fundie cheerleading brigade.
771. joezan - 12/10/2002 3:50:51 PM
...and nothing on its manifest about missiles, which are discovered stashed between sacks of cement.
772. RickNelson - 12/10/2002 3:55:38 PM
"In sum, the Christian fundamentalists are stupid but mostly harmless, while Islamic fundamentalists are both stupid and dangerous."
True and the only current information needed for the day.
What's important now? The slander across the board of all Islam? That it's adherents follow coercion to achieve world expanssion of Islam? I don't believe it. It's ludicrous.
What I want to read is if the average muslem who prays five times a day and aspires to the five pillars has a strong inclination to follow teachings of coercive evangilism? I can't recall hearing or reading anything of the sort.
The age old differences of each religion is moot in my opinion. Who cares when it comes down to what's happening now? The religions histories are valid in another context, but now, for this year, this time, much less so relevant.
773. alistairconnor - 12/10/2002 5:10:51 PM
There is considerable controversy in France at the moment, and probably elsewhere in Europe, about the prospect of Turkey joining the European Union (some time after the current wave of central European candidates).
Old Pappy Giscard is against it : he claims that it's impossible because Europe is fundamentally Christian. Others are against it on geographical (Turkey is not in Europe?) or cultural grounds (Turkey is an oriental country -- but then what about Greece?)
I don't believe any of these grounds hold up, and I think the adhesion of Turkey would be beneficial to all - if the EU survives as a viable and worthwhile entity after the current wave and constitutional reform.
What does Pseud think?
774. concerned - 12/10/2002 5:47:54 PM
".....Christian fundies backed by American dollars have been directly responsible for mass exterminations and the wiping out of entire indigenous peoples in the recent past."
I think specific examples need to be provided for such an extreme and sweeping accusation that, in effect, purports to assert that the Biblical scriptures themselves, irrespective of their actual content, bear a level of fault imposed on the writings of no other religion to control the secular activities of every one of its nominal adherents.
More usefully staed, the question would be: Which 'entire indigenous peoples' have been wiped out by so-called 'Christian Fundamentalists', acting according to Biblical writings?
The answer here is 'none'. Let us not lose sight of this fact.
I put the mass extermination of tens of millions of blacks in slavery, at least two million Armenians, the virtual extirpation of Christianity throughout most of North Africa and the Mideast and 9/11 for good measure on the table. These are all activities condoned by the Koran and its Hadiths. Nothing comparable can be stated wrt Biblical scriptures, as I have previously shown. Neither has anything remotely comparable to such bloodshed as specifically allowed and/or encouraged by the Koran ever occurred due to the activities of 'American Christian Fundamentalists'.
775. PelleNilsson - 12/10/2002 7:01:38 PM
concerned's massive ignorance and profound confusion about the issues at hand are again demonstrated by
the Biblical scriptures themselves, irrespective of their actual content. This is completely without meaning.
activities condoned by the Koran and its Hadiths. Hahaha!
776. concerned - 12/10/2002 7:21:55 PM
UN:Al-Qaeda planning uranium bomb
Given this, the question: What danger could Iraq possibly pose to the rest of the world? is answered.
777. concerned - 12/10/2002 7:23:59 PM
Re. 775 -
Of course it is completely without meaning; so must necessarily be the accusations that there is something inherently violent in Christian fundamentalism. That's my point.
778. PelleNilsson - 12/10/2002 7:46:57 PM
You are in entirely too deep waters here. You had better head for the shore (read Politics)where your views, however unpalatable, at least have some relation to reality.
779. concerned - 12/10/2002 7:51:22 PM
Too deep for some,no doubt. However, I don't wish to belabor the point.
780. Andonly - 12/10/2002 7:55:37 PM
"I don't recall any passages therein that either promote slavery or provide guidelines or rules by which a slave is governed."
In the OT they're there. If I recall, the rules mostly govern things like whether a slave can work on the Sabbath (s/he can't), manumission, semi-humane treatment, that sort of thing. I don't think anything in the OT prohibits or even decries the institution of humans as property, except where the slavery of the Hebrews in Egypt is concerned, and then only in the context of the Hebrew slaves having been mistreated.
"Wrt 'slaughtering natives', I presume that this is rationalized as emulation of some of the behavior of the ancient Hebrews in the Old Testament..."
You may be surprised to learn that some (possibly most) of the Orthodox today take those ancient prescriptions very seriously. Make no mistake, the business of slaughtering every last Amalekite, all their women, cows, slaves, and pet goldfish, was supposedly on orders from God, and when the Hebes didn't follow through they were punished for it.
781. Andonly - 12/10/2002 8:02:01 PM
PE's 760-762 are quite sane, and I share this reaction.
782. Wombat - 12/10/2002 8:02:22 PM
Weren't the "sons of Ham" destined to be slaves after he saw Noah's nakedness?
783. jonesatlaw - 12/10/2002 8:15:46 PM
Fundamentalism is almost by definition hazardous. Christian fundamentalism is no less hazardous. Chattel slavery was deemed by many Christians to be in keeping with the litteral word of the Bible, and indeed there are numerous references to slavery in the New Testament. The Crusades were not only in keeping with the Bible, but were endorsed as righteous duty by the leader of the Christian world, a series of Popes.
While there was not unanimity among Christians in the US during the Indian Wars, many Christians felt that the Bible allowed wholesale elimination of the "heathen savages" in their way.
Being a fundamentalist Christian is not inherently violent. The Old Order Amish and other Anabaptist sects are famously fundamental, pious and pacifist. But, they are also famous for their lack of conformity to "this world" and have not held the levers of temporal power anywhere to my knowledge. It is those fundamentalists who seek both to exert temporal and spiritual mastery over others who are dangerous and almost uniformly violent.
784. jonesatlaw - 12/10/2002 8:27:08 PM
the Bible's instructions to slaves
"1All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. 2Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them. "
785. robertjayb - 12/10/2002 8:35:33 PM
Hey, Jones. Goodtoseeya. How are the flying lessons? Are your arms tired? Hyuk...Hyuk...
786. PelleNilsson - 12/10/2002 8:38:01 PM
Nice to see you around again, Jones.
787. jexster - 12/10/2002 8:43:10 PM
PIRACY ON THE SPANISH MAIN: US Releases Yemens' Scuds
788. JJBiener - 12/10/2002 9:08:55 PM
The followers of Islam had quite a task in front of them to equal the brutality and violence perpetrated in the name of Christianity. I think they have done a remarkable job in that respect. I find it difficult to watch Christians try to take the moral high ground on this issue.
789. Wombat - 12/10/2002 9:16:48 PM
This should be fun...
790. judithathome - 12/10/2002 9:24:44 PM
Given this, the question: What danger could Iraq possibly pose to the rest of the world? is answered.
When did Iraq annex Tanzania?
791. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 9:38:35 PM
Message # 763: "....Jesus of the superceding New Testament was notable for veering in the opposite direction by 'turning the other cheek' which may not have always promoted the best survival skills, but I don't recall him as being described as having done anything more violent during his lifetime than physically ejecting moneylenders from a temple....I'm sure it's perfectly possible for either the Koran or the Bible to be used as religious texts in religiously tolerant societies; it's just that there's notably fewer obstructions to doing so in the New Testament than any of the other writings."
Jesus said all kinds of rather nasty things. Here are just two instances:
Kill all infidels: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)
Kill apostates: "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned". (John 15:6) This passage, by the way, was the Catholic church's scriptural justification for burning heretics and apostates.
There are many more; and one can expand on the above citations (and in Jones's) simply by searching the website of www.infidels.org or similar secular humanist anti-Christian sites. They mine for 'embarassing' anti-modern passages in the Bible in much the same way Christian polemicists do with the Qur'an.
Personally, I think it's a rather silly game, but the idea that Jesus was nothing more than a cheek-turner needs to be corrected; and the rather banal point must be made that lines from scripture can be found to argue any point.
792. concerned - 12/10/2002 9:39:42 PM
JAH -
Why is it necessary to spell out the simplest facts to some people? Known uranium ore deposits exist on all continents except Antarctica.
793. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 9:40:20 PM
There is a cognitive dissonance of sorts in the anti-Islamic rhetoric of the Christian fundamentalists. The Falwell-Robertson types like to refer to the history of Islamic aggression against Christian and other peoples. When mention is made of Christian aggression against non-Christians, they abandon the historical angle and turn to scripture, saying that whatever history has seen, the respective scriptures show that Christianity is intrinsically 'about' love while Islam is intrinsically 'about' [some opposite of love]. Well, the scriptural angle doesn't really work either, as shown above.
All this talk about what any given religion 'intrinsically' is, or about what any given religion has been historically like, is a diversion. One should stick to the actual current beliefs and practices. And Christian beliefs & practises at present, thanks to the secularisation that has been forced upon Christians by the larger society of the West, are more in line with modernity than Muslim beliefs & practises at present.
794. judithathome - 12/10/2002 9:44:37 PM
Why is it necessary to spell out the simplest facts to some people?
You've got me...why not ask all those who have to do it for you?
795. concerned - 12/10/2002 9:45:18 PM
I stand corrected wrt the Bible and slavery. It appears my 30 year old memories were not sufficient authority in this case. That said, I'm a little disappointed that chapter and verse were not cited in any of the responses to this.
796. Wombat - 12/10/2002 9:48:39 PM
Perhaps the Koran was inspired by and elaborated on the writings of its Biblical predecessors.
797. concerned - 12/10/2002 9:51:34 PM
Re. 794 -
Unfortunately for JAH's post here, opinions aren't facts.
798. judithathome - 12/10/2002 9:56:14 PM
Unfortunately for you, the post after mine makes it obvious you need correcting at times, too.
799. joezan - 12/10/2002 9:57:18 PM
PE:
In Luke you are quoting Jesus telling the parable of the talents -the person who is talking about killing people is the rich and powerful man of the story - not Jesus. There is no ambiguity about this in any version I've ever read. I can't believe you didn't know that.
As for the John passage, more accurate translations - just about every one except the KJV, matter of fact, have that correctly translated as: "If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned..."
(NIV)
800. joezan - 12/10/2002 10:01:17 PM
As for slavery, of course the Bible made many references to slavery - it was a fact of life at the time that if your group - tribe, nation - whatever, was beaten in battle you were enslaved. This was universal.
Nothing in the NT, however, encourages slavery. It talks about how to serve one's master if one is a (Christian) slave, and how to treat one's servants if one is a master.
801. JJBiener - 12/10/2002 10:12:32 PM
Wombie - Perhaps the Koran was inspired by and elaborated on the writings of its Biblical predecessors.
I believe that is exactly what the Qu'ran is. Muslims recognize both the New and Old Testaments in addition to the Qu'ran.
802. joezan - 12/10/2002 10:13:38 PM
Jesus said all kinds of rather nasty things. Here are just two instances:
There are many more...
Nonsense.
Post some more if you can find them.
803. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 11:06:42 PM
Zan, most Qur'anic passages cited by Christian polemicists can be similarly spinned away.
804. concerned - 12/10/2002 11:22:29 PM
Re. 799 -
Thanks, joezan, for the clarification. I was planning to check this out on my own, given time. But it didn't seem to make sense to have Jesus talking out of hand like some kind of tribal warlord.
805. concerned - 12/10/2002 11:27:16 PM
Re. 801 -
But it's precisely how the Bible is 'recognized' by Muslims that is of significance. Typically, such recognition means very little within an Ummah.
806. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2002 11:30:22 PM
Muslims don't recognise the Old Testament or the New Testament at all. And "ummah" can't have an indefinite article before it, since there is only one.
807. jexster - 12/11/2002 2:18:40 AM
End of the West?
The Threat of Bush Ultranationalist Machtpolitik
Anatol Lieven
CEIP
808. wonkers2 - 12/11/2002 2:41:02 AM
Good article by Lieven! He has it about right.
809. Marc-Albert - 12/11/2002 2:59:06 AM
Clever, but too many "if" and "suppose that".
810. jexster - 12/11/2002 3:13:01 AM
When the New Moronic Imperium finally arrives all "if's" and "suppose that's" will finally depart.
811. Andonly - 12/11/2002 3:43:25 AM
"Muslims don't recognise the Old Testament or the New Testament at all."
In fact they consider the OT and NT to be misunderstandings and corruptions of God's intention.
The strict rabbinical interpretations of the laws of kashrut, for instance, were challenged (quite successfully, imo) by Islam. But some Sufis followed Jesus, and Sufism in general was legitimized (officially, though it has remained suspect over the centuries), so some aspects of the NT must have been considered acceptable to Islam at some point.
"And "ummah" can't have an indefinite article before it, since there is only one."
But that's sort of a doctrinal technicality, don't you think? There is in practice no single ummah, except perhaps when the subject of Israel comes up.
812. Andonly - 12/11/2002 3:47:10 AM
What I want to know about the N. Korea-to-Yemen scuds shipment is, why did the US think we had an agreement with Yemen not to purchase these weapons from N. Korea? (I missed the news this evening, so if there was any analysis of the issue I didn't hear it.)
Apparently we did not. But we fucking should have.
813. Andonly - 12/11/2002 3:53:23 AM
Oh, never mind; Jexstron's link above fills in the holes.
Looks like we just let Yemen off the hook for some undisclosed reason.
814. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2002 3:53:57 AM
There is not a single community, even on the subject of Israel. Turkey, Azerbaijan and all the ex-Soviet Central Asian states have relations with Israel. When Kyrgyzstan opened diplomatic relations with Israel, it even announced that it would open its embassy in Jerusalem, which only two other countries have done.
All the same, I have never ever seen "an ummah", only "the ummah". That's because the word has a unitary meaning, regardless of whether there exists in practise a united global Muslim community.
815. joezan - 12/11/2002 4:54:56 AM
PE:
Zan, most Qur'anic passages cited by Christian polemicists can be similarly spinned away.
It's not spinning by any stretch, and you know it.
Obviously, you lifted that entire thing from one of those anti-Christian sites you were talking about, where whoever put it up purposely took it out of context. All you need do is read the two prior sentences in Luke, and there is no question Jesus is not referring to himself at all.
The John passage is different, in that it was indeed a catalyst for murder in its King James form. However, there is no question that the King James was a bad translation of that passage - all modern translations I've read have corrected it (and by corrected I don't mean creatively edited).
What you did was lazy and sloppy - but it happens to the best of us, pseud.
816. joezan - 12/11/2002 5:00:02 AM
What concerned was probably referring to was the fact that Islam recognizes Jesus (Isa), and many of the OT prophets as well.
817. concerned - 12/11/2002 6:08:43 AM
From 'Challenge of Living Islam in the West' by Ferdeous Ahmed
One of the greatest dangers to our children is the western education system. I can remember vividly, the kufr idea that was taught in my school.
I remember in biology they used to teach the theory of evolution, which says human beings evolved from apes.
I remember in physics they used to teach that energy is eternal, cannot be created or destroyed.
Not realising, these ideas contradicted my belief in Islam. Not realising Adam (as) is the father of mankind and not apes and monkeys. Not realising that Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) is eternal and energy is a creation of Allah.
I also remember RE (Religious Education) class, where the teachers used to say Islam is like Christianity and Judaism because they are all Abrahamic faith. Not realising that Islam is the only Haq and every other religions are batil (my note: Batil means false of falsehood)..
And let’s not forget what happens in the playground. I remember the peer pressure to have girl friends, I remember this boy called Michael, who did not have a girlfriend and they used taunt him by saying he is a homosexual. They said so many times he actually believed them and became a homosexual.
This is the reality of western education.
818. concerned - 12/11/2002 6:09:53 AM
This situation worries me greatly, Al hamdulliah, Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) has blessed with a son and a daughter. But I am worried that they may turn out to be like Alex and Derek or Michael the homo.
This is our challenge as parents living in the west. This is a matter of Jannah and Jahanam. Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’aala) will question us about our responsibility on the day of judgement.I know that I can’t truly protect my children without the khilafa state and the systems of Islam. But must do what we can to protect them and raise them as Muslims.
We as Muslims living in the west can set-up our own Islamic schools in our homes and communities. These schools should not be Islamic schools only in name, unfortunately some schools have set-up already but the still kufr.
A friend of mine who is teacher in Islamic school was saying that they are know teaching the children how to be good British citizen, they are teaching things like democracy.
We need to make sure our Islamic schools teach Islam and Islam only.
We need make sure that our children must know why there are Muslims.
That they know that we are Muslims because we are convinced about the existence of the Creator not because we our parents are only Muslims.
We need to make sure that they understand that prophet was not just a nice person with good morals. We need teach them that he was leader, judge, and commander of the Army.
We need to teach them the Islamic history.
So, if the fact that some Christian fundamentalists believe in creationism ruins your day, schedule an appointment to head straight for the insane asylum if the incomparably ignorant Islamic attitudes get a good foothold.
819. jexster - 12/11/2002 6:12:21 AM
Looks like we just let Yemen off the hook for some undisclosed reason.
No international law authorizing letters of marque
820. concerned - 12/11/2002 6:12:51 AM
Perform a real good work. Convert a Muslim to atheism today.
821. concerned - 12/11/2002 6:13:25 AM
This means you, jex.
822. concerned - 12/11/2002 6:17:33 AM
Rick Nelson posted this howler:
What I want to read is if the average muslem who prays five times a day and aspires to the five pillars has a strong inclination to follow teachings of coercive evangilism? I can't recall hearing or reading anything of the sort.
Of course that's so, simply by being a Muslim.
823. concerned