http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...red-lands.html
Very long read, some of you may find it interesting.
Printable View
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...red-lands.html
Very long read, some of you may find it interesting.
I started reading until I reached the part about sectarian strife; I have no doubt western imperial rule used that to rule the area. But it is preposterous to imply that the sectarian strife needed any fanning on by those powers. The Ottoman Empire and Iran were deadly enemies long before the first European power turned its eyes to the middle east.
The Persians and the Ottomans have fought each other for sectarian reasons since about the seventh century. Anyone who thinks it is due to the west is very myopic,
The Ottoman empire didn't exist in the 7th century
No it didn't and nor does either it or Persia exist today, but the people that later became the Ottomans did. There was sectarian conflict in that land and between those peoples since the seventh century. Whether they be called Persians or Turks or Ottomans or Seljuks etc is not the real point.
I. . . don't think any Turkish peoples were involved that far back. They didn't start coming out of the Aral Sea area until the 1000s, as mameluks serving the Abbasid Caliphate.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I didn't read the article, but hopefully it pointed out that "the Arab World" has always been fractured, and fighting, in some way or other, since forever. :noob:
Applying a modern-day context became more complicated, and nuanced, when the west became oil-dependent....and that meant relying on foreign oil for our energy needs. (Europe faced the same thing with Russian-sourced oil. And China still relies on western fossil fuels like coal).
If we took petroleum products out of the power equation, "the Arab World" might still be coming apart at the seams. The Saudi Sheiks would still be trying to pose as the religious/moral authority for the whole region, while they simultaneously try to buy "western stuff" with their oil revenues, but deny their population basic freedoms.
I hate to say this, but the west only cares about these global issues when it impacts our daily life. The African continent is also fracturing with power struggles and civil wars....but we only notice when the price of coffee or sugar goes up. And that doesn't matter as much as fossil fuel imports. We'll never wage a war for Somalia like we did for Kuwait. :(
Maybe I have my.history messed up but I thought that was like saying that there was no English populace before 1066 as the Normans hadn't arrived yet ... despite the fact that although they displaced the Saxon leadership the Saxons etc were already there.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I thought the Sunni Seljuks were precursors to the Ottomans.
Looking into it the Seljuks were more Persian than Turkic though they seem to be classed as both. Confusing.
They are (in the sense the Seljuks were the first major group of Turkish people to come out). But they didn't come out to the area for another few hundred years. In the 700s, the Arabs were just starting to establish the Abassid Caliphate, and there were no Turkish peoples south of the Aral Sea region. But the movement of peoples in the Middle East (and Central Asia, North Africa, much of Europe) isn't really comparable to England. In England, people under pressure had nowhere to go. In much of Asia and Europe, they displaced in the face of war or migration pressures. The better approximation for the Isles isn't to the Saxons before/after the Norman invasion but to the various Celtic groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
OK so we have between seven and ten centuries depending upon how you measure it of such conflict combined with conflicts in that region by different peoples dating back to the seventh century.
Either way it's still myopic to suggest conflicts are solely due to the west.
But now we're in the 21st century......where every post or picture can be traced. Maybe I'm paranoid, or just drunk, but I don't think it's a stretch to say the "American World" is falling apart.
I wasn't disagreeing, just nitpicking
This thread is about the Arab World not the Americans. Nit sure what you mean by the American world falling apart but I don't see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Sometimes it's what we do best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Absolutely.
The problem with historical explanations for current events are all the intervening factors/events that took place since then. The further we move from the present, the harder it is to draw a clear link between cause and effect. Imperialism certainly created many problems, but Middle Easterners had a century to resolve them. Furthermore, they did a good job of creating numerous problems of their own.
The main problem with "artificial borders" is not that they're artificial per se but that no domestic group was able to enforce those borders upon the rest of the population. This lack of dominance and monopoly on the use of force allows for constant challenges to the regime's rule. Contrast the Saudis, who overwhelmed all domestic opponents, with the Iraqis, who did not. Both have problems with establishing a nationalism, both have significant minorities, but only Iraq keeps on erupting in violence on a regular basis.
I should also note that just like partition doesn't end conflict (but rather moves it from the intra-state level to the inter-state), having homogeneous (in terms of religion) states in the Middle East would shift warfare from the domestic arena to the international one.