NationStates Jolt Archive

I made an argument in another thread that Arab civilization suffered some obvious cultural deficiencies, and it was implied that I was a racist hobgoblin. (I cannot recall which thread it was now, but since it was a tangent from the OP anyhow, I may as well start a new thread about it).

Well, this is silly on two different points: it ignores the fact that Arab civilizations obviously are deficient (would you say someone with schizophrenia is no more dysfunctional than you or I, just different?), and it ignores the fact that I never argued their problems were inherently "Arab" in nature. Indeed, they are not exclusively Arab, nor are they common to all Arab nations. Some African and most South American nations fare only slightly better, although they can fall back on griping about western exploitation in a way that Arabs, who have a long and bloody imperialist history of their own, cannot. (Plus, since Arabs aren't getting along with black Sudanese or hindu Indians, either, it's clearly not just a western problem). And some majority Arab/Muslim nations, like Turkey or Morocco, are clearly much more progressive and functional than their counterparts in, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran.

So what am I talking about in terms of cultural deficiencies? Let's hit them point by point:

(A) Political pathology. Far and away the vast majority of Arab nations are governed pathologically, although whether their dictators are by nature theocratic or secular varies (and is irrelevant anyway). Few have truly democratic elements.

(B) Internal instability. Many Arab nations are rife with ethnic/sectarian violence; stability is achieved only when these groups are welded together by a violent strongman who maintains a semblance of order through brute force. Witness the violence that engulfed Iraq after their strongman was toppled.

(C) Poverty. Ignoring oil, a windfall that Arab nations themselves did not create and which they can seldom tap without labor trained and technology provided by western nations, Arab nations are overwhelmingly impoverished. What wealth they have is usually captured by exceedingly narrow interests, especially the ruling class. Unemployment is usually pretty substantial and unbearably high levels of the population live below their nation's poverty line (40% in Iran, generally regarded as one of the most advanced nations in the Arab heartland).

(D) In terms of most basic social indicators, from literacy rates to the status of women, most Arab nations fall startlingly short of the measures of civilization.

(E) The simple existential fact that their culture is not admired by anyone, either in its high or popular forms. Their universities do not have large contingents of foreign students flocking there to study them. No one dreams of enjoying their lifestyle.

Again, the problem with these nations has nothing to do with their "Arabness." It is not the geographical situation of the land they occupy. It has nothing to do with western imperialism (recall, anyway, that Arab conquerers had occupied parts of Europe long before the crusades). The simple fact of their cultural failure is that they rigidly adhere to the wahhabist strain of Islam, which is to Islam what puritanism was to Christianity.

The difference here is that Christianity was able to strangle puritanism, whereas Islam could not do the same to wahhabism, because Islam rigidly dictates how its adherents are to be governed politically (the sharia). There is no equivalent of the sharia in Christianity or Judaism, only moral and ethical guidelines that are not meant to be construed as the literal law of the land. Christianity itself explicitly recognizes a distinction between church and state; hence, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God that which is God's." This is what has allowed predominantly Christian societies to pursue social goods independent of spiritual goods, even where they might clash: for instance, affording people the right to practice their religion freely, or criticizing the church, or enfranchising women (something the male-dominated church hierarchy probably wasn't happy about). In wahhabist Islamic countries where church and state are inseparable, the government can simply use force to coerce any elements that are potentially problematic to the church out of existence.

Those Arab nations that have rejected Islam as their basis for social order generally prosper. Morocco is probably the best example for what a strongly Arab/Muslim country would look like absent the ideological corruption of wahhabism.

Now Christianity might have wound up like modern Islam had it not been for the reformation, which the church was unable to quash because it did not possess the coercive power of government (which Islam does). An Islamic reformation would fail because it would be quashed by the state; a revolution against the state would be useless because it would eventually be mimicked by another wahhabist dictator. Because church and state are intrinsically bound up together in Islam, so are the means of reforming both; for this reason I'm not sure they can be salvaged easily.

I'm sure that decades of politically-correct west-bashing makes these points difficult for most people to digest, but this does not alter the fundamental truth of it all. If you're going to argue these points, fine, I'm up for debate; but please do better than snark and allegations of racism.

"Arab civilization," in today's world, is an oxymoron.

It's nothing to do with Islam in particular: it's just that theocracies suck.

Whos calling you a racist hobgoblin?

Whos calling you a racist hobgoblin?

Give it time...

Iran isn't an Arab nation.

Blaming religion in the immediate for their problem is over simplifying things. Islam is imbedded in the social conscience of the people. Its teachings form the basis of their society simply because they have generally adheared to them for centuries. The same is true of the imbedded Christianity in 'Western' culture or Confusian ethics present in much of the 'Far East'.

Iran isn't an Arab nation.

'Tis true. Turkey isn't either.

The part about foreigners not wanting to go to Arab institutes of higher learning is incredibly false. People from throughout the Islamic world attend Arabia's Islamic Universities.

And just remember, civilisation isn't black and white. For every negative aspect, there is a good aspect somewhere else.

The part about foreigners not wanting to go to Arab institutes of higher learning is incredibly false. People from throughout the Islamic world attend Arabia's Islamic Universities.

Uh...

And just remember, civilisation isn't black and white. For every negative aspect, there is a good aspect somewhere else.


How's that half-full glass threatin' ya there?

Geographical position. Try building the foundations of a nation on sand. When Islamic people succesfully captured more fruitful land, they build an impressive legacy. see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus)

Concerning history, the muslims have a very decent one compared to the people who followed christianity. Sadly islam is indeed up for a reformation, but the proces is drastically slowed down because of everything around the recent war of terror.

"Arab civilization," in today's world, is an oxymoron.

they've had cities longer than you white-boy

they've had cities longer than you white-boy

Yes, and my being a "white-boy" has everything to do with my point. :rolleyes:

Yes, and my being a "white-boy" has everything to do with my point. :rolleyes:

the point is that your point was incorrect

the point is that your point was incorrect

Care to counter my point with something other than calling me a "white-boy"?

Care to counter my point with something other than calling me a "white-boy"?

"they've had cities longer than you whiteboy"

their ancestors invented civilization and they've had 'em ever since.

The part about foreigners not wanting to go to Arab institutes of higher learning is incredibly false. People from throughout the Islamic world attend Arabia's Islamic Universities.

And just remember, civilisation isn't black and white. For every negative aspect, there is a good aspect somewhere else.


He/she was talking about people from outside Arab and Arabesque (Iran and Turkey included) countries and regions. While Iran and Turkey are not Arab themselves they were and are heavily influenced by Arab thought (and until the rise of the Ottoman Turks, government as well.

"they've had cities longer than you whiteboy"

their ancestors invented civilization and they've had 'em ever since.

We call that "the past." It has little relevance today. Did you not read my first post in this thread, in which I said, "in today's world"? Seems you did read my post, but you chose to ignore anything that might interfere with your sad attempt at creating a flamefest here. Run along now.

"they've had cities longer than you whiteboy"

their ancestors invented civilization and they've had 'em ever since.



A city isn't a sign of culture, its a sign that an area is rich in food,water,or some other type of necessity or a good trade route. These also became cespools for death and disease.

We call that "the past." It has little relevance today.

still have cities
still have agriculture
still have monumental architecture
still have complex governing institutions
still have civilization

A city isn't a sign of culture, its a sign that an area is rich in food,water,or some other type of necessity or a good trade route. These also became cespools for death and disease.

Culture's got nothing to do with civilization. All civilization needs is a city.

A city isn't a sign of culture

no, the mere existence of a group of people is a sign of culture. cities are signs of civilization.

no, the mere existence of a group of people is a sign of culture. cities are signs of civilization.

Strange definitions those.

Strange definitions those.

Dictionary definitions, Master Yoda.

"they've had cities longer than you whiteboy"

their ancestors invented civilization and they've had 'em ever since.

And they haven't made any progress in five hundred years. In fact, they've slipped backward. Once they were the most advanced civilization on earth, now they're almost the least advanced. Only some sub-saharan nations are more backward.

Geographical position. Try building the foundations of a nation on sand. When Islamic people succesfully captured more fruitful land, they build an impressive legacy. see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus)

Concerning history, the muslims have a very decent one compared to the people who followed christianity. Sadly islam is indeed up for a reformation, but the proces is drastically slowed down because of everything around the recent war of terror.

To say that Islam was about to undergo a reformation before the war on terror is to refuse to look at the facts. Thanks to the Soviets and then the Russian Federation as well as the jihad in Kashmir, Islam has been growing more conservative over the past half century, not less so. The only reverse of that trend being Saudi Arabia (Turkey has been slowly growing more conservative and may possibly pass the sharia soon.)

And if by impressive you mean slaughtering thousands of Byzantines,Armenians,Spainards, and Romanians then yes very impressive. I will grant you that they made huge gains in mathematics but they still could not conquer the at that time culturally backwards Europe, and then because of their tradition of quashing a conquered culture and forcing it to adhere to their own standards the Europeans passed them up and left them in the dark.

And they haven't made any progress in five hundred years. In fact, they've slipped backward. Once they were the most advanced civilization on earth, now they're almost the least advanced. Only some sub-saharan nations are more backward.

Full point.

Strange definitions those.

not really. more like common and cross-culturally useful.

Culture's got nothing to do with civilization. All civilization needs is a city.



Culture is the cornerstone of civilization. Without culture a civilization falls apart as it takes on a CIVILIZATIONS culture. People without culture are what we call vagabonds, hunters and gatherers, and were generally known as neanderthals.

no, the mere existence of a group of people is a sign of culture. cities are signs of civilization.



And to argue that most of the Arab world has functioning cities is folly.

Culture is the cornerstone of civilization. Without culture a civilization falls apart as it takes on a CIVILIZATIONS culture. People without culture are what we call vagabonds, hunters and gatherers, and were generally known as neanderthals.

What the hell does Neandertal Man have to do with humanity? It was a completely separate species.

And they haven't made any progress in five hundred years. In fact, they've slipped backward. Once they were the most advanced civilization on earth, now they're almost the least advanced. Only some sub-saharan nations are more backward.

i made no claims about progress (however we're defining that in this instance).

Culture is the cornerstone of civilization. Without culture a civilization falls apart as it takes on a CIVILIZATIONS culture. People without culture are what we call vagabonds, hunters and gatherers, and were generally known as neanderthals.

No, there are hunter-gatherer cultures, and Neanderthals refer to a particular species of Hominid that branched off from our line and settled in Europe before our species arrived there.

not really. more like common and cross-culturally useful.

Cross-culturally? Okay, you're one of those wonderful moral relativists then, I'm guessing?

And to argue that most of the Arab world has functioning cities is folly.

...What?

People without culture are what we call vagabonds, hunters and gatherers, and were generally known as neanderthals.

wow. just, wow.

read a book

What the hell does Neandertal Man have to do with humanity? It was a completely separate species.

My point is that to try and define civilization without culture is impossible. Without culture there is no civilization.

Cross-culturally? Okay, you're one of those wonderful moral relativists then, I'm guessing?

no

...What?

Widespread corruption, violence, faction fighting, two or three militias and governments per city...

Cross-culturally? Okay, you're one of those wonderful moral relativists then, I'm guessing?

Cross-Cultural deffinitions have nothing to do with morals they're how we can do science,math, learn each others histories, etc.,etc.

i made no claims about progress (however we're defining that in this instance).

But Arab "civilization" is great now because it was a couple millenia ago?

Oh, and by the way, the nations that are Arab nations now were not Arab nations when they established cities. Sumer was an Arab city? Babylon was an Arab city? Cairo, Alexandria, and Memphis were Arab cities?

You completely fail at history. Come back when you have a clue.

Widespread corruption, violence, faction fighting, two or three militias and governments per city...

Iraq is not the entire Arab world. Most of the cities are, in fact, stable.

My point is that to try and define civilization without culture is impossible. Without culture there is no civilization.

without culture there is no coherent group of people. culture isn't part of the definition of civilization because all societies, no matter what level of complexity and mode of subsistence, have cultures.

Iraq is not the entire Arab world. Most of the cities are, in fact, stable.

No I'm talking about Damascus, Palestine, Iran, Syria.... where the hell is Iraq ... (Only the last one is a joke...)

without culture there is no coherent group of people. culture isn't part of the definition of civilization because all societies, no matter what level of complexity and mode of subsistence, have cultures.


So you are saying that it is indeed necesarry to have culture to have civilization.... one does not exist without the other?

No I'm talking about Damascus, Palestine, Iran, Syria.... where the hell is Iraq ... (Only the last one is a joke...)

Again, Iran's not an Arab nation.

But Arab "civilization" is great now because it was a couple millenia ago?

who said anything about great, now or then?

Oh, and by the way, the nations that are Arab nations now were not Arab nations when they established cities. Sumer was an Arab city? Babylon was an Arab city? Cairo, Alexandria, and Memphis were Arab cities?

You completely fail at history. Come back when you have a clue.

did i say they were?

Again, Iran's not an Arab nation.

True, but it has been heavily influenced by Arab thought, religion, culture, etc etc. I would venture to say that it is today more Arab than Persian (culturally), that it is only Persian in race and not deed (for lack of a better word). And you weren't answering the argument.

So you are saying that it is indeed necesarry to have culture to have civilization.... one does not exist without the other?

yes, but only in a trivial and useless sense. it is not a defining characteristic any more than "evolved from ancestral species" is a defining characteristic of primates.

who said anything about great, now or then?

did i say they were?


You haven't said anything even remotely intelligent or informed. But congratulations on spamming this thread up with your ignorance.

You haven't said anything even remotely intelligent or informed. But congratulations on spamming this thread up with your ignorance.

says the guy who doesn't know what civilization is...

says the guy who doesn't know what civilization is...

Says the guy who doesn't know what capitalisation is. :rolleyes:

I'm done with your ignorant ass.

yes, but only in a trivial and useless sense. it is not a defining characteristic any more than "evolved from ancestral species" is a defining characteristic of primates.

How can it be trivial and useless, when it is necessary? That was my point that culture is necessary to having a civilization whereas cities are not. The Huns make a wonderful example here.

Says the guy who doesn't know what capitalisation is. :rolleyes:

I'm done with your ignorant ass.


Is "capitalisation" even a word?

Is "capitalisation" even a word?

Might be.

Is "capitalisation" even a word?

Uh...yes (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalisation).

Uh...yes (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalisation).

Oh ok just curious, but your usage was incorrect. You should have said "capitalisim", I think. oh well :)

Oh ok just curious, but your usage was incorrect. You should have said "capitalisim", I think. oh well :)

Uh, no.

How can it be trivial and useless, when it is necessary? That was my point that culture is necessary to having a civilization whereas cities are not. The Huns make a wonderful example here.

no, cities are one of the defining features of civilization. without them, no civilization - or maybe a sort of halfway category of civilization if the culture in question does everything else on, for example, childe's checklist.

if we just know that there is some culture over there, we have no idea what sort of institutions and level of complexity it has. sort of like if we merely know that there is some life form over there that evolved from ancestors, we have no idea if it is a primate or not. we need to look at the actual distinctive features, rather than the universal ones.

The fact that the tiny little nation called Israel is still there after countless attempts wars, and attempts for it to be 'wiped off the map' shows how backwards arab nations are, military-backward anyway. which is kind of ironic as military and war is the thing most arab nations are obsessed with nowadays.

Arabness has to do with the failure of the arabs, not islam itself. basically, islam advocates good deeds, good conduct, good this, good that. its the misintrepetation of islam that has actually lead to the downfall of the arabs. wahabbi, is one thing. hadhari of malaysia is another.

[QUOTE=Tirindor;12121433]I made an arg.......[quote]

Turks are not Arabs. Iranians are not Arabs. Your terminology is generally loose, and your ideas pre-ordained to fit your belief.

I think you need to examine your argument closer. You mention Iran and Saudia Arabia in the same breath. You implicitly claim Iran is wahhabist. You also seem to confuse the terms Arab and Muslim. As far as I'm aware the ethinicity of most people in Pakistan is a mix of Persian and Arabian.

You claim Iran's economy is rock bottom. Iran has comparable unemployment rates to the EU (being lower than Germany's). There is a claim that 40% of people live below the poverty line in Iran (as opposed to 12% in the USA). I'm not sure how this has been calculated. Mainly because according to World Factbook (where I obtained the the 40% figure), the GDP per capita in the US is ~$40k, and in Iran it is $8,400. The Worldfactbook also states that Iran has a lower Gini index than the USA - meaning it has a more even distribution of income. Finally if we look at the income of a family on the poverty line we find that it is $17k per year in the USA, and 600,000 Rials per month in Iran (equivalent to $800 per year). So what I don't understand is how more people in Iran can be living below the poverty line than in the USA, when the poverty line income of Iran is a much smaller fraction of average income than in the US, and when Iran has a more equal distribution of income than the USA. For me, something just doesn't add up here.

You've also pointed out that Iran is a theocracy. Iran was a democracy at the turn of the last century. The democracy was toppled by the British and American agents when it attempted to nationalise its oil industry. The Shah was installed as dictator. He proved to be so unpopular that eventually he was overthrown by a revolution with religious elements. So to say Iranian civilisation is backwards is liking me breaking your arm and then claiming you don't look after your body properly.

Pretty much all of Arabia wasn't independent of the Ottoman empire or British Empire at the turn of the century. None of the area had been independent for centuries. It had been administered centrally through the Ottoman Empire, which the British and French were determined to destory through the treaty of Sèvres, much like they had attempted to permanently weaken Germany through the treaty of Versailles. Hence the League of Nations mandates of Palestine, Iraq, and Syria were easy to manage for the British and the French (Turkey revolted, Egypt had been a British colony since 1879, and the Arabian peninsula was given to the Allies ally against the Ottoman empire - the Sauds).

So basically what you have in the Middle East is the setting up of small strong men in region after the collapse of a central power. An equivalent would be Western Europe after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. If we fast forward a couple of centuries to when Europe is pretty much at the darkest part of its history (still having not managed to pull it self back together), we find the Islamic Caliphate - strong Arabian, and then Turkic dynasties in control of Northern Africa, Arabia, Turkey, Central Asia, South Asia, and large parts of Europe (at various times) from about 600AD to 1924AD. Although there was much infighting in the Caliphate, it provided a stable base for scientific and cultural learning, preserving much knowledge and adding to it as well.

Screw it, I've written too much. Pfft, I bet most people won't read this, let alone reply to it.

Screw it, I've written too much. Pfft, I bet most people won't read this, let alone reply to it.

Read first paragraph and part about ottoman and british empire, then i got bored :(

Islamic Caliphate - strong Arabian, and then Turkic dynasties in control of Northern Africa, Arabia, Turkey, Central Asia, South Asia, and large parts of Europe (at various times) from about 600AD to 1924AD. Although there was much infighting in the Caliphate, it provided a stable base for scientific and cultural learning, preserving much knowledge and adding to it as well.

Screw it, I've written too much. Pfft, I bet most people won't read this, let alone reply to it.


What about the advancements in technology in Europe that didn't happen in the Caliphates? Why do you believe that happened? Lewis 2002 (ISBN 0-06-051605-4) believes it to be that Islamic culture stopped allowing women to be educated. When over 50% of your population (The large group that teaches your children) is largely ignorant, it causes a larger portion of ignorant children.

So...if this is true it leads me to ask why did their culture move 'backwards' to this extent?

So...if this is true it leads me to ask why did their culture move 'backwards' to this extent?

'cause shit happens

modern "Western" civilisation is based in large part ON arab civilisation. mathematics, medicine, architecture, our entire knowledge of history....really I'm not even going to get into it. it is only the most astounding and revolting ignorance that could claim arab culture is "deficient" - arabs were building palaces and founding universities when our ancestors were galabanting about in peat bogs painting themselves blue. the fact that the middle east and north africa got the ass-end of colonialism doens't mean squat as far as the actual "value" of a civilisation. hands down anyone who looked at baghdad or timbuktu in 1400 would vastly prefer them to paris or london.

So what am I talking about in terms of cultural deficiencies? Let's hit them point by point:

(A) Political pathology. Far and away the vast majority of Arab nations are governed pathologically, although whether their dictators are by nature theocratic or secular varies (and is irrelevant anyway). Few have truly democratic elements.

(B) Internal instability. Many Arab nations are rife with ethnic/sectarian violence; stability is achieved only when these groups are welded together by a violent strongman who maintains a semblance of order through brute force. Witness the violence that engulfed Iraq after their strongman was toppled.

(C) Poverty. Ignoring oil, a windfall that Arab nations themselves did not create and which they can seldom tap without labor trained and technology provided by western nations, Arab nations are overwhelmingly impoverished. What wealth they have is usually captured by exceedingly narrow interests, especially the ruling class. Unemployment is usually pretty substantial and unbearably high levels of the population live below their nation's poverty line (40% in Iran, generally regarded as one of the most advanced nations in the Arab heartland).

(D) In terms of most basic social indicators, from literacy rates to the status of women, most Arab nations fall startlingly short of the measures of civilization.

(E) The simple existential fact that their culture is not admired by anyone, either in its high or popular forms. Their universities do not have large contingents of foreign students flocking there to study them. No one dreams of enjoying their lifestyle.

Again, the problem with these nations has nothing to do with their "Arabness." It is not the geographical situation of the land they occupy.

Some comments: I think that Arab nations are mostly a few decades, or in some cases, a century or three, behind Western civilisation, so they probably will catch up with us eventually.

A) As has been witnessed in places from Iraq to Pakistan, these places are just not ready for democracy. They need strongman dictators in order to control Shia/Sunni and/or ethnic violence.

Which is not to say that they can never be. Forty years ago, when South America was wall to wall dictatorships, people often speculated if it was the brand of Catholicism followed by most people there.

B) In my home continent of Europe, there were centuries of ethnic and Catholic/Protestant bloodshed, even within nations. Strong dictators are needed to control them before they can be educated out of their intolerance.

C) Yeah, mass poverty usually causes a society to stagnate. There are a number of possible answers, from laissez-faire capitalism, to socialism - depending on what stage their economies are already at.

D) Yes.

E) Another problem indeed. More people graduate with theological degrees than with science or engineering degrees in the Arab world.

I do think that the geographic conditions, namely, harsh desert climates, may encourage poverty and puritanism.

B) In my home continent of Europe, there were centuries of ethnic and Catholic/Protestant bloodshed, even within nations. Strong dictators are needed to control them before they can be educated out of their intolerance.

Strong dictators have controlled them for the past 50+ years. They've pretty much gotten worse in every single metric of human development during that period.

What about the advancements in technology in Europe that didn't happen in the Caliphates? Why do you believe that happened? Lewis 2002 (ISBN 0-06-051605-4) believes it to be that Islamic culture stopped allowing women to be educated. When over 50% of your population (The large group that teaches your children) is largely ignorant, it causes a larger portion of ignorant children.

So...if this is true it leads me to ask why did their culture move 'backwards' to this extent?

what technological advancements would those be? the turkish sultanate kept up with (and was actually rather ahead of) europe until the 1800s or so. that had everything to do with the sheer dumb luck of the british wool industry sparking the industrial revolution (an excess of sheep, coal, and child labour - nothing more) - as far as your claim that islamic culture stopped allowing women to be educated...this is compared to...who? european women remained about as educated as chamber pots, unless they were very high class whores, until well into the industrial revolution.

Not to bash any religion, theocraty sucks.
Cmmon look at muslim countries. Higher level of secularization higher level of standard of living.

still have cities
still have agriculture
still have monumental architecture
still have complex governing institutions
still have civilization
What's the relevance of this?

Turkey has been slowly growing more conservative and may possibly pass the sharia soon.
I doubt it. If they do that, all hope of ever getting into the EU will vanish immediately.

it is only the most astounding and revolting ignorance that could claim arab culture is "deficient" - arabs were building palaces and founding universities when our ancestors were galabanting about in peat bogs painting themselves blue. the fact that the middle east and north africa got the ass-end of colonialism doens't mean squat as far as the actual "value" of a civilisation. hands down anyone who looked at baghdad or timbuktu in 1400 would vastly prefer them to paris or london.
Looks like you hit the good old "past/history" fallacy there. Nobody is denying the past glory of Arab civilisation. Here's a rather eloquent Drunk Commies quote:

And they haven't made any progress in five hundred years. In fact, they've slipped backward. Once they were the most advanced civilization on earth, now they're almost the least advanced.

as far as your claim that islamic culture stopped allowing women to be educated...this is compared to...who?
No matter what you try to say, you have to admit that this is a step backwards.

Why are you going to such pains to show us that everything is sweet and dandy with Arab civilisation?

What's the relevance of this?

this:
"Arab civilization," in today's world, is an oxymoron.

what technological advancements would those be? the turkish sultanate kept up with (and was actually rather ahead of) europe until the 1800s or so. that had everything to do with the sheer dumb luck of the british wool industry sparking the industrial revolution (an excess of sheep, coal, and child labour - nothing more)

The same is true with the Islamic world; they were lucky enough to lie on the major east-west trade routes during the Middle Ages, and were lucky enough to have abundant deposits of salt that they could trade for the gold that financed their trade routes.

Had they not possessed these things, they would have likely never emerged as a commercial and scientific power to begin with.

- as far as your claim that islamic culture stopped allowing women to be educated...this is compared to...who? european women remained about as educated as chamber pots, unless they were very high class whores, until well into the industrial revolution.

Yeah, but that's the thing: European women did become educated and their society moved on from that era. It's not good for a 21st century nation, especially ones with resources like many of the Islamic states, to have social development equivalent to that of a 16th or 17th century preindustrial country.

this:
Oh right yeah. Cluichistan, you moron!

Strange definitions those.

Yet they're true. It is as impossible for human being to live without culture as it is for there to be a sky without air. By definition, when humans get together and start talking to each other and wearing clothes and eating food they have a culture. Having said that, I agree that cultures do have relativistic values and that there is something terribly lacking in modern Arab, Muslim culture. Someone said they need a reformation and enlightenment. I agree with that sentiment. I disagree, however, that what is stopping them from having one is the WOT. They've had centuries to adopt humanist values over fealty to religion, which is in essence what we're talking about. For much of that time they were in control of large swaths of Europe, not the other way around. It was only last century, in fact, that the Ottoman empire fell. Plenty of time to get around to it.

What about the advancements in technology in Europe that didn't happen in the Caliphates? Why do you believe that happened? Lewis 2002 (ISBN 0-06-051605-4) believes it to be that Islamic culture stopped allowing women to be educated. When over 50% of your population (The large group that teaches your children) is largely ignorant, it causes a larger portion of ignorant children.

So...if this is true it leads me to ask why did their culture move 'backwards' to this extent?I fail to see the point. The first admission of women to western universities was by UCL in 1869. Because of UCL's mission to extend university education to all it was villified as 'The Godless Institution of Gower Street'. Previous to this the the only other universities in the United Kingdom were Oxford and Cambridge. To put this in perspective the university of Oxford had, only three years previous, ceased the requirement of belonging to the Church of England to gain a BA. And I believe the CoE only ordained its first female priest in 1994. So please tell me how Europe was englightening its female population before that.

And what advancements in Europe are we talking about? The various military advances? The various theological and consequential political advancements required to drag Europe out of the middle ages?

I'm worried. Quite a lot of people seem to think that the West is vastly in front of the Middle East in terms of women's rights. Whilst Europe was slowly creeping forward with women's rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it's not untill the advent of WWII when women were required to keep factories working and so forth. Before WWII the ratio of women to men in the workforce is relatively low, during WWII when this ratio jumps massively, but doesn't fall to its previous levels after the war is over.

Pick any country in the world, and the most it will be behind the West in terms of women's rights is only about 100 years. With most being 50 years or less behind. Women's rights is an incredibly recent development in human history.

I'm worried. Quite a lot of people seem to think that the West is vastly in front of the Middle East in terms of women's rights. Whilst Europe was slowly creeping forward with women's rights in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it's not untill the advent of WWII when women were required to keep factories working and so forth. Before WWII the ratio of women to men in the workforce is relatively low, during WWII when this ratio jumps massively, but doesn't fall to its previous levels after the war is over.

Pick any country in the world, and the most it will be behind the West in terms of women's rights is only about 100 years. With most being 50 years or less behind. Women's rights is an incredibly recent development in human history.

Yeah, but in the 19th century the Europeans weren't giving women 90 lashes for gettiing raped. The west is so far ahead on women's rights hat to put a time frame on it I think is ridiculous. Some of the rights abuses seen in much of the Muslim world, in particular the Arab world, were never seen in the Western world.

Yikes, I post at my first break and there's five pages by my second (correction: six by the time I read up to page 4). :eek:

Iran isn't an Arab nation.

Right, they are majority Persian, although this is only a minor distinction. And since my point was that their social problems exist independent of their race, and would still exist if it was all white people or black people or Indians practicing wahhabist Islam, it doesn't matter much.

Blaming religion in the immediate for their problem is over simplifying things.

Well, I wasn't exactly blaming religion as a whole or even Islam specifically. Like I said, there are peaceful majority-Muslim nations, and they are reasonably stable because they do not practice the most extreme variant of their religion, which dictates they all have to live in some kind of high-medieval caliphate-type society.

The problem here is not religion but the fact that their religion is taken too far.

The part about foreigners not wanting to go to Arab institutes of higher learning is incredibly false. People from throughout the Islamic world attend Arabia's Islamic Universities.

That last part is true, but it's got no bearing on what I said in my OP. Although maybe I worded it improperly.

What I should have said more clearly was that no one else in the world dreams of going to universities in wahhabist Islamic countries. The U.S. and European countries swap students constantly, but the Middle East's university system is largely isolated by comparison.

And just remember, civilisation isn't black and white. For every negative aspect, there is a good aspect somewhere else.

This is true of mental disorders as well, but that does not mean we have no basis for distinguishing between people who are "functional" and "dysfunctional."

When Islamic people succesfully captured more fruitful land, they build an impressive legacy.

I don't deny this; I suspect part of the reason is that it's because their govenrment is dominated by Islam, which mandates by dogmatic fiat a kind of high medieval form of society. It worked for them back then, when no one else was that advanced, but now that the world has moved beyond it, they can go no further because dogma is largely unchangeable.

It also helps that they conquered and militarily absorbed numerous civilizations that had many long years of historical and cultural achievements behind them, like the Egyptians.

Sadly islam is indeed up for a reformation, but the proces is drastically slowed down because of everything around the recent war of terror.

They've had a few centuries since the end of their hayday and the beginning of the war on terror to start one.

There is sociological evidence that an Islamic reformation was in the works a few centuries back but was quashed by the government; I'll try to dig some of it up when I get home.

no, the mere existence of a group of people is a sign of culture. cities are signs of civilization.

For the record, I'm not denying that the Arab world has a coherent civilization or that it was once a world power. I'm just saying it's not up to par to everyone else's.

And they haven't made any progress in five hundred years. In fact, they've slipped backward. Once they were the most advanced civilization on earth, now they're almost the least advanced. Only some sub-saharan nations are more backward.

Well, this is not necessarily symptomatic of a "backwards slide" on the part of the Arab world. I think the world has just moved past them, where they've remained largely fixed on a medieval society because it's what their religion mandates. Aside from a few grudging concessions to modernism (often imposed at the barrel of a gun), they've mostly not changed at all in centuries.

Turks are not Arabs. Iranians are not Arabs.

Yes, yes, I get that. And this is massively beside the point, which was that ethnicity has nothing to do with their social problems.

Your terminology is generally loose, and your ideas pre-ordained to fit your belief.

I use loose terminology because I typed the post in the span of a 10-minute bathroom break at work. This does not undermine the point of my OP; see above.

The problem is not ethnicity, but the variant of Islam that most of these people practice.

Since we're on the topic of loose terminology, I suspect you don't grasp the definition of "preordained." But I'm not going to harp on this because it's an Internet forum, not a treatise on political philosophy.

So what I don't understand is how more people in Iran can be living below the poverty line than in the USA, when the poverty line income of Iran is a much smaller fraction of average income than in the US, and when Iran has a more equal distribution of income than the USA.

Because income distribution is not a positive good. If income distribution is relatively even, unemployment is high, and the poverty line is set absurdly low but is still surpassed by large swaths of people, it suggests three things:

(1) The cost of living in Iran is fairly low. (Hence the low poverty line).

(2) People are uniformly poor despite this low cost of living. (Suggested by the even income distribution and the high rates of poverty).

It all comes together to paint a picture of a nation that is largely impoverished. There is nothing missing here.


I'll address the rest of the posts when I get home from work.

Some of the rights abuses seen in much of the Muslim world, in particular the Arab world, were never seen in the Western world.

In England for "speaking too freely" the punishment would be to have a spiked device placed on the tongue, the offender then being paraded through the streets, led by same, followed by a period in the stocks. And there was always the ducking stool. Liberal lot, obviously....

:
Right, they are majority Persian, although this is only a minor distinction. And since my point was that their social problems exist independent of their race,
.

Then why, in the name of all fuckery, did you call it "On Arab civillisation"


For the record, I'm not denying that the Arab world has a coherent civilization or that it was once a world power. I'm just saying it's not up to par to everyone else's..

"Arab" again...This is what I mean about the loose language.

Well, this is not necessarily symptomatic of a "backwards slide" on the part of the Arab world. ..

And again....

Widespread corruption, violence, faction fighting, two or three militias and governments per city...

Go to Cairo, a massive city with a minuscule crime rate...

Baghdad is not the only Arab city.

In England for "speaking too freely" the punishment would be to have a spiked device placed on the tongue, the offender then being paraded through the streets, led by same, followed by a period in the stocks. And there was always the ducking stool. Liberal lot, obviously....

I didn't mean to imply that the West is squeaky clean, but a tertiary glance at the abuse women suffer, not historically but right now, in much of the Muslim world makes any comparison with how women are treated in the west patently absurd.

I didn't mean to imply that the West is squeaky clean, but a tertiary glance at the abuse women suffer, not historically but right now, in much of the Muslim world makes any comparison with how women are treated in the west patently absurd.

True, however I might point out that you did say were never seen in the Western world., hence my comment.

True, however I might point out that you did say were never seen in the Western world., hence my comment.

What I was refferring to specifically, and I should hae been more clear, is teh story about that girl in Saudi Arabia who reported that she had been raped by five men in a minivan. They were able to subsequently convict the five men and they were sentenced to 50 lashes. She got 90 lashes for being alone with them in the van. I don't believe that women have ever been treated by the state in Western culture that way. I understand that women have and still do suffer injustice in Western culture, but I usually see it go the other way. Women are treated as too dumb/weak to be allowed to take risks, etc... and need to be sheltered, etc... I've never read accounts of women being stoned to death for being pregnant out of wedlock even in history. Though I admit there are episodes like the salem witch burnings, etc...

Right, they are majority Persian, although this is only a minor distinction. And since my point was that their social problems exist independent of their race, and would still exist if it was all white people or black people or Indians practicing wahhabist Islam, it doesn't matter much.I think the problem here is you are trying to tar the whole of the middle east with the same brush. Which I don't think works well. The middle east is not unified by race (which you imply by using the word Arab, but have here denied), nor religion. You use the term Wahhabism. Wahhabism only really exists in Saudia Arabia, and more recently western Iraq. Shia Islam is most prevalent in Southern Iraq and Iran. There is a fairly strong tendency towards secularism in the North of the middle east. With the rest of the area predominated by Sunni Islam. I think the only thing that unites the Middle East is that they are treated as if they are united. Indeed there seems to have been cooperation between Syria and Iran since they were both accused of by rouge states by George Bush. The opposite of divide and conquer as it were.

Actually I believe I am mistaken. The one similarity between the Middle Eastern states is that at some point over the last 60-70 years they have had a dictator installed by a foreign country, or at least supported their rise in the case of the House of Saud.They've had a few centuries since the end of their hayday and the beginning of the war on terror to start one.

There is sociological evidence that an Islamic reformation was in the works a few centuries back but was quashed by the government; I'll try to dig some of it up when I get home.I would be very interesting in reading about this as I'm not aware of it.Because income distribution is not a positive good. If income distribution is relatively even, unemployment is high, and the poverty line is set absurdly low but is still surpassed by large swaths of people, it suggests three things:

(1) The cost of living in Iran is fairly low. (Hence the low poverty line).

(2) People are uniformly poor despite this low cost of living. (Suggested by the even income distribution and the high rates of poverty).

It all comes together to paint a picture of a nation that is largely impoverished. There is nothing missing here.


I'll address the rest of the posts when I get home from work.You said it suggests three things, but only mentioned two and a summary point. Was the summary point mean to be a third point?

Anyway. It seems to me that you think Iran is pretty destitute. Iran is constantly improving. Infant mortality is getting lower, Life expectancies are getting higher as are Literacy rates and the Human Development Index.

The UNSIAP (part of the UN) suggests that between 1988 and 1997, the average level of human poverty fell from 31 to 18 percent.
http://www.unsiap.or.jp/participants_work/cos03_homepages/group1/iran.htm

What I was refferring to specifically, and I should hae been more clear, is teh story about that girl in Saudi Arabia who reported that she had been raped by five men in a minivan. They were able to subsequently convict the five men and they were sentenced to 50 lashes. She got 90 lashes for being alone with them in the van. I don't believe that women have ever been treated by the state in Western culture that way. I understand that women have and still do suffer injustice in Western culture, but I usually see it go the other way. Women are treated as too dumb/weak to be allowed to take risks, etc... and need to be sheltered, etc... I've never read accounts of women being stoned to death for being pregnant out of wedlock even in history. Though I admit there are episodes like the salem witch burnings, etc...Saudi Arabia differs quite a lot to the rest of the Middle East. The Sauds are just insane in everyway, whereas King Abdullah II of Jordan and Saddam Hussein are just megalomanics.

By definition, when humans get together and start talking to each other and wearing clothes and eating food they have a culture.

well, assuming they are doing those things together in some fashion and not just independently but next to each other, anyways

"they've had cities longer than you whiteboy"

their ancestors invented civilization and they've had 'em ever since.

Lets put a fine point on it. The oldest KNOWN cities are there. There are other older settlements which would be of a permanent nature, and its highly likely that there are some which would be large enough to be called cities, but remain undiscovered.

The oldest known settlement that I can find mention of is at Pedra Pintada in brazil, and is 11,000 years old. Of course, there were cave settlements world wide before that, but its dicey attributing town or village status to those.

A good definition of the difference between town and city is that a city has specialized people in charge of organizing and maintaining order, while a town is more informal. By that definition, mesopotamia has the oldest by current knowledge.

But here is the fine point. You dont need a city to have a culture. For example...


Cro-Magnon lives
Cro-Magnons lived from about 40,000 to 10,000 years ago in the Upper Paleolithic period of the Pleistocene epoch. For all intents and purposes these people were anatomically modern, only differing from their modern day descendants in Europe by their slightly more robust physiology and larger brain capacity than that of modern humans. When they arrived in Europe about 40,000 years ago, they brought with them sculpture, engraving, painting, body ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian objects. They had a diet of meat, grain, wild carrots, beets, onion, turnip and other foods. All together they had a very balanced diet.

Surviving Cro-Magnon artifacts include huts, cave paintings, carvings and antler-tipped spears. The remains of tools suggest that they knew how to make woven clothing. They had huts, constructed of rocks, clay, bones, branches, and animal hide/fur. These early humans used manganese and iron oxides to paint pictures and may have created the first calendar around 15,000 years ago.[2]

The flint tools found in association with the remains at Cro-Magnon have associations with the Aurignacian culture that Lartet had identified a few years before he found the skeletons.

The Cro-Magnons must have come into contact with the Neanderthals, and are often credited with causing the latter's extinction, although morphologically modern humans seem to have coexisted with Neanderthals for some 60,000 years in the Levant[3] and for more than 10,000 years in France. [4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromagnon is the entire text.

By this you can see that culture far outdates city life. While currently unproven, there is no reason to doubt that mankind couldnt and didnt, put together a city before 8k BC.

But I think there is something unique about the middle east. They built those grand cities because they HAD to work together to thrive, whereas the europeans had the luxury of being able to sustain themselves in smaller groups, as did the pacific islanders and others.

Therein lies the irony, and maybe the point of the OP. Why cant they get along anymore? Babylonia fell apart before 0 AD, long before they were islamics, long before any Christians, oppression, or any of that. They cannot scape goat the rest of the world for their failings, and they cannot see their faillings.

Why cant they get along anymore?