One could make an argument that the entirety of the mess that is the middle east could be attributed to colonization in the middle east. An outside force in the form of European military power fractured a cohesive society and upon their exit, and the definition of modern day middle eastern states, solidified a psuedo cohesive society that was weakly bonded and easily overturned...in the cases of Sadam Hussein, the Ayatollah, and numerous other military juntas over colonial leadership as a general theme in post colonial society.
Dictatorships being frail in nature and having been easily toppled in the past and today we are seeing the face of the middle eastern map totally rewritten as those who live there are forced to choose sides. ISIS is an uprising of sunni trying to unify upon their natural generational lines, while it appears that Iraq and Iran are becoming unified in their battle against the same cultural enemy, and so on with the Kurds (who may as yet form their own state).
As an american I am concerned about my own generations involvement with the middle east (I am a millennial). I believe that my countries own misguided actions have aided in destroying the power structure in the middle east and leaving a vacuum where people are free to declare their own allegiance. It is difficult to say that action we should take in confronting our now defacto enemies as projecting our own power only seeks to further the appearance and overall impression of colonialism.
I'm sure many of you are concerned with this. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Generational Dynamics, Colonialism, The Middle East & Africa
-
Reality Check
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:07 pm
Re: Generational Dynamics, Colonialism, The Middle East & Af
One could also argue, at least as convincingly, that the actions you are describing as Colonial, were actually an attempt by the Great Powers, to avoid what is happening now, from happening 100 years ago.
That attempt appears to have been successful until now.
World War I was the war that destroyed the great empires that had existed for Hundreds of years.
The Ottoman-Turkish Empire, the Astra-Hungarian Empire, The Russian Empire, and the last vestiges of Chinese Empire were fully eliminated at about the same time. The exception was the Japanese empire which expanded into Korea, parts of China and parts of Russia tofill part of the vacuum left by the the destruction of the Russian and Chinese Empires.
The country boundaries in the Middle East drawn up after World War I, by the Great Powers of Europe, were, more than anything else, an attempt to avoid a new empire forming in the ruins of destroyed Ottoman-Turkish Empire.
The Asian portions of the Ottoman-Turkish empire were built on the ruins of the Sunni-Arab empire previously located in the same area.
The Great Powers wanted to ensure neither the Ottoman-Turkish Empire, nor the Sunni-Arab empire re-emerged in the region.
Thus the minority, warlike, Sunni-Arabs tribes in Iraq, in Alliance with the Minority Kurds and the Minority Christians, were put in power in Iraq when Great Brittan pulled out. The more urbanized, and less warlike Shia in Iraq, who made up approximately fifty-percent of the people at the time, were prevented from creating a Shia religious state by the heavily armed, and proven military experience of, the minorities they sought to dominate.
All the people of Iraq shared a fear of the Turks re-establishing an authoritarian Turkish empire in Iraq.
Syria had a similar history. France left the non-Sunni Arab minorities in charge of the Syrian government and the Syrian military when they pulled out.
The non-Arabs ( Assyrians, Kurds, and others of non-Arab descent ), the Arab Shia, the Arab Christians, the Arab Alawite, and the Secular Arabs all feared both a take over of Syria by Sunni Arab fundamentalists tribes ( Great Britain's military allies against the Turkish Empire in WWI ) and the reformation of the Turkish empire in Syria. This is what held the Syrian ruling elite together as a country.
France also split Lebanon, a region with a plurality of Christians at the time, off from Syria as a separate country, with a government which shared power based on the demographics of the Religious groups in Lebanon at the time the Country became independent from France and the Lebanese constitution was written. The Lebanese constitution guarantees a share of political power to each religious group based on the number of people in that country sharing a given religion.
That attempt appears to have been successful until now.
World War I was the war that destroyed the great empires that had existed for Hundreds of years.
The Ottoman-Turkish Empire, the Astra-Hungarian Empire, The Russian Empire, and the last vestiges of Chinese Empire were fully eliminated at about the same time. The exception was the Japanese empire which expanded into Korea, parts of China and parts of Russia tofill part of the vacuum left by the the destruction of the Russian and Chinese Empires.
The country boundaries in the Middle East drawn up after World War I, by the Great Powers of Europe, were, more than anything else, an attempt to avoid a new empire forming in the ruins of destroyed Ottoman-Turkish Empire.
The Asian portions of the Ottoman-Turkish empire were built on the ruins of the Sunni-Arab empire previously located in the same area.
The Great Powers wanted to ensure neither the Ottoman-Turkish Empire, nor the Sunni-Arab empire re-emerged in the region.
Thus the minority, warlike, Sunni-Arabs tribes in Iraq, in Alliance with the Minority Kurds and the Minority Christians, were put in power in Iraq when Great Brittan pulled out. The more urbanized, and less warlike Shia in Iraq, who made up approximately fifty-percent of the people at the time, were prevented from creating a Shia religious state by the heavily armed, and proven military experience of, the minorities they sought to dominate.
All the people of Iraq shared a fear of the Turks re-establishing an authoritarian Turkish empire in Iraq.
Syria had a similar history. France left the non-Sunni Arab minorities in charge of the Syrian government and the Syrian military when they pulled out.
The non-Arabs ( Assyrians, Kurds, and others of non-Arab descent ), the Arab Shia, the Arab Christians, the Arab Alawite, and the Secular Arabs all feared both a take over of Syria by Sunni Arab fundamentalists tribes ( Great Britain's military allies against the Turkish Empire in WWI ) and the reformation of the Turkish empire in Syria. This is what held the Syrian ruling elite together as a country.
France also split Lebanon, a region with a plurality of Christians at the time, off from Syria as a separate country, with a government which shared power based on the demographics of the Religious groups in Lebanon at the time the Country became independent from France and the Lebanese constitution was written. The Lebanese constitution guarantees a share of political power to each religious group based on the number of people in that country sharing a given religion.
-
MickelJacson
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:34 am
Re: Generational Dynamics, Colonialism, The Middle East & Af
I want some friends I can go level with or take some ops. Hard to find people on during my play time because I'm in the USA. I am currently Protopharma but I can switch on my own to whichever faction. I prefer anti-city.
…..Em Mikky…..
Re: Generational Dynamics, Colonialism, The Middle East & Af
Crabin,
Bernard Lewis has some excellent books on the Middle East and Islam. As well as youTube videos.
There is a component of religious superiority that drives their actions as well. Islam teaches its adherents that it is superior, and the final word of God, and the pious will be blessed with prosperity. The problem is that reality says something different. Muslims have seen Western Civiizlation overtake and surpass them in just about everything. They've had to adapt to Western Civ to survive, instead of Western Civ converting to Islam.
I've read Reza Aslan's "No god but God" to get the Muslim (he's a former Christian converted Shia) perspective of the Islam as well. From his writing I took away from it that Muhammad's interest in creating Islam was for financial reasons only. He was a carvan trader that saw the wealth the Qaba in Mecca was making for the rulers there. At that time the Qaba was a multicultural, multireligious shrine. It was a tourist attraction. Muhammad tried take power and was kicked out of Mecca. He relocated to Medina, and understanding the power that religion had over Mecca, formed his own, raised an army, and defeated the rulers of Mecca, and then became rich, and spread Islam to other parts of Arbia and beyond. When nearing death, he left no heirs to take over in his place as Caliphate, and there has been a fight about that ever since. Now, it seems to me, that if you are creating a legitimate idealogy for people to follow for the betterment of their lives, you'd set things up for it to continue into the future. He didn't do that. Maybe there were reasons why, but it wasn't explained well enough in that book for me to recall without digging back through it. However, now Islam certainly is a legitimate religion. What's interesting to me, is that in the histories of Islam that I've read from Western Civ authors, I never interpreted Islam's rise to be motivated solely on personal wealth. I don't think it was Aslan's intent to suggest this, but it's what I deduced.
Sure, other countries and powers have meddled in the Middle East, and elsewhere--it's what empires and nations, and whathaveyou do in their own self interests of remaining an empire, or nation, or whathaveyou. Muslim's did the same. I'm sure the people of the Iberian peninsular wondered who these invaders were and what they had done to deserve being conquered. We could just as well say the Muslim's started it, and we've been trying to finish it, or keep them at bay so they don't start it again. No matter who has been meddling in the affairs of Muslims, or not, if we leave them alone, there is a historic and current precedent that they will not leave us alone. For that reason, I say the main problem in the Middle East is the practiced interperation of Islam.
Bernard Lewis has some excellent books on the Middle East and Islam. As well as youTube videos.
There is a component of religious superiority that drives their actions as well. Islam teaches its adherents that it is superior, and the final word of God, and the pious will be blessed with prosperity. The problem is that reality says something different. Muslims have seen Western Civiizlation overtake and surpass them in just about everything. They've had to adapt to Western Civ to survive, instead of Western Civ converting to Islam.
I've read Reza Aslan's "No god but God" to get the Muslim (he's a former Christian converted Shia) perspective of the Islam as well. From his writing I took away from it that Muhammad's interest in creating Islam was for financial reasons only. He was a carvan trader that saw the wealth the Qaba in Mecca was making for the rulers there. At that time the Qaba was a multicultural, multireligious shrine. It was a tourist attraction. Muhammad tried take power and was kicked out of Mecca. He relocated to Medina, and understanding the power that religion had over Mecca, formed his own, raised an army, and defeated the rulers of Mecca, and then became rich, and spread Islam to other parts of Arbia and beyond. When nearing death, he left no heirs to take over in his place as Caliphate, and there has been a fight about that ever since. Now, it seems to me, that if you are creating a legitimate idealogy for people to follow for the betterment of their lives, you'd set things up for it to continue into the future. He didn't do that. Maybe there were reasons why, but it wasn't explained well enough in that book for me to recall without digging back through it. However, now Islam certainly is a legitimate religion. What's interesting to me, is that in the histories of Islam that I've read from Western Civ authors, I never interpreted Islam's rise to be motivated solely on personal wealth. I don't think it was Aslan's intent to suggest this, but it's what I deduced.
Sure, other countries and powers have meddled in the Middle East, and elsewhere--it's what empires and nations, and whathaveyou do in their own self interests of remaining an empire, or nation, or whathaveyou. Muslim's did the same. I'm sure the people of the Iberian peninsular wondered who these invaders were and what they had done to deserve being conquered. We could just as well say the Muslim's started it, and we've been trying to finish it, or keep them at bay so they don't start it again. No matter who has been meddling in the affairs of Muslims, or not, if we leave them alone, there is a historic and current precedent that they will not leave us alone. For that reason, I say the main problem in the Middle East is the practiced interperation of Islam.
Re: Generational Dynamics, Colonialism, The Middle East & Af
Series of videos from Vice News over the summer about a brewing conflict between Morocco and Saharan freedom fighters.
wasi
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests