Is this how the westerners think??

[Lyra]

Originally posted by arun
I read the following comment on bbc.co.uk.

After the Cold War, the world seemed for a new age of peace and prosperity. Is it not time for those with the capability, experience and belief in a functioning, democratic and tolerant society, to take up arms and get rid of the backwards dictators and religious fanatics that blight the world? I hope Mr Blair and Mr Bush realise they have started something that cannot be finished in Iraq. We must have the resolve to see this through to the end, only then can the world be united and truly at peace.

Is this how a common westerner think about the other parts of the world?

Arun - I take it this was from a forum of some kind, and the fact that it was edited indicates to me that perhaps someone there wasn't thrilled with it.

It certainly isn't the way this common westerner in the UK thinks: it represents one of the extremes that so often crop up on boards and phone-ins, which is why I tend to steer clear of them - I have high blood pressure. Whoever this is obviously knows little if any history and wouldn't believe in any case that we were grubbing about in woad while other great civilisations were flourishing. This sort of ignorance always reminds me of a simultaneously horrifying and hilarious conversation I had with someone I worked with, in a UK department store started by an Eastern European Jewish immigrant, who explained carefully to me why we shouldn't allow immigration, and how he was English through and through, being able to trace his family tree back to the Saxons ...!

Sadly, ignorance of this kind is deadly. Literally.

[brianleahy]

Time for a rare political outburst from me:
--------------------
No, surely all westerners do not feel that way.

I think it is worth pointing out a few things that sometimes get overlooked: When one speaks of a country being "in the dark ages" (or the bronze age, stone age, etc.) there are at LEAST three different things one might be referring to:

1 - Living conditions for the average citizen. Most (though by no means all) 'westerners' live in circumstances where we take for granted such things as: adequate food, water, and sanitation; a roof over our heads and a source of heat when it gets cold; usually electricity and electric lighting; and a reasonable level of safety from crime. By comparison, a place where some or all of these things are missing would definitely seem like the 'dark ages' to a westerner. Obviously, given the choice, pretty much anyone in the world would prefer to live in such comfortable circumstances. The observation that they can't and don't is not really an insult to the people themselves, but can seem condescending just the same.

2 - Government structure. The United States - and most "western" countries - embrace the ideal of democracy (okay, okay, a REPRESENTATIVE democracy in the US at least). The fact that we use it pretty much means, by definition, that we think it's a good system, or at least, better than the alternatives.

This is not to say that people cannot be happy, comfortable, and treated fairly in other societal structures. Indeed, a case can be made that in some ways, a system that is closer to communism (ACTUAL communism, not the thinly disguised dictatorships of the Soviet union, North Korea or China) is, strictly speaking, "fairer". And history teaches us that there HAVE been some very benevolent kings and dictators - so yes, it is POSSIBLE for a country to be happy and prosperous under a dictator.

However, I will stand unashamedly by the notion that the government MUST put the needs of its citizens first, and that any system that fails in this regard is worthless - "medieval" to say the least. The problem with a dictator is that there is no mechanism to COMPEL him (or her) to put the needs of the citizens first - the system is wide open to abuse. Saddam Hussein is the classic example; he places himself at the center of the universe, and the Iraqi people are there to protect him. He actually urges his citizens to act as human sheilds, protecting his military assets. This is precisely backwards; the military should be protecting the public, NOT the other way around. Adolf Hitler was probably more evil, but it's hard to deny that Hitler treated Germans (the gentiles, anyway) better than Saddam is treating the Iraqi people.

Saddam's Iraq has a governmental structure that is utterly dysfunctional and has no place in the 21st century. I say with no fear of hypocrisy that a change is probably necessary. This is not to say that I necessarily endorse the way we are going about it -- but one way or another, it could not be allowed to continue.

3 - Social structure. In many parts of the world, women are still treated as the property of their husbands, socio-economic classes or castes are strictly segregated and enforced, and races or ethnic groups are discriminated against and repressed. These practices and customs can be many thousands of years old, and often have a religious basis. It cannot surprise us that those who have always lived with these circumstances (at least, those who are members of the more socially powerful gender, class, caste or race) will see it as an attack on their culture and/or religion to criticize these practices.

And I will be the first to admit that there is a certain amount of inherent hypocrisy in Americans criticizing such practices - we very definitely still have gender, race, and class bias in the US -- though at least they are not usually a part of our official laws! Still, as someone once said "If you won't take a stand for something, you'll stand for anything." So here's my stand: these practices ARE out of place in the 21st century, and I feel we SHOULD oppose them, at home and elsewhere.

Yet STILL this is not an insult reserved for middle eastern societies. The US, like everyone else, continue to do things - including patently harmful and unfair things - for no other reason than we have always done them this way, or because we think God wants it this way. That line of thought is common, and very human -- but undeniably medieval and illogical.


I hope, however, that I don't sound too black-and-white: I am not saying that any of these things are NECESSARILY reasons to go to war. It is not necessary to endorse this war to condemn Saddam Hussein. It is not necessary to be a fan of George W. Bush to condemn Saddam. I have never been a Bush fan, and while I agree with Bush about Saddam being unfit to run a 21st century nation, I am still very uneasy about this war. Wars *are* sometimes necessary, and some things *are* worth fighting for --but I wonder if this war will really leave the world a safer and more stable place when we are through.

In any event, now that we have begun, I feel it would be an even worse crime to stop before the job is finished. Now that we have our hands dirty, we have to make sure that we achieve our stated goal of freeing Iraq from Saddam. If we stop now, we'll have put the Iraqi public through another bloodbath, only to leave them exactly where they were before, at Saddam's tender mercies. That would be unforgivable.

Bottom line - "we westerners" are all over the map in our beliefs. Personally, I'd like to give everyone in every country the opportunity to live at least as comfortably and safely as we do, and to have a voice in how their government operates. I just don't know what level of carnage is justified to achieve it.

[Darkshadow]

habilis - war on terrorism is a greatly dumb idea. Not because it's not a worthy thing to go against, but because there will never be an end to it. It's a person(s) last attempt at getting a point through - usually a warped idea, yes, but they feel they must make it. It's a part of human nature, sadly.

War against it tends to lend credence to these people that their idea works, that they are getting at least some of their point through - and gets them to attempt it again, in an even greater effort that might get the point across to even more people.

Hmm, and I don't think the Iraqis are going to be making much of their oil anytime soon, as most of the implements of doing the work with it have been destroyed.

[toast]

Using means of coercition #1 (war) against means of coercition #2 (terrorism) makes sense only to limited minds.

[fryke]

Toast, I thought it was _clear_ to all of us in this discussion we're talking about George W. Bush?

[Cat]

Two minor observations:

1) There is no such thing as a "westener". There are enormous cultural differences between so-called "western cultures".

2) When using the expression "Dark ages", one commonly refers to a certain period in the early middle-ages (not bronze or stone age), when history amounted mainly to emperors, churches and war (just like now ...).

[brianleahy]

In my post I mention all three periods only because they had been mentioned in other posts, not because I thought they were all the same.

I think that when most people refer to countries like Iraq being "in the dark ages" they just mean generally that certain conditions that prevail there seem to us like they should belong to the distant past. (e.g. absolute rulers, secular laws based on religious doctrine, something akin to a feudal system, no electricity, etc.) Few have gone to the trouble to compare specific details of life in Iraq to specific historical periods.

[toast]

Originally posted by brianleahy
I think that when most people refer to countries like Iraq being "in the dark ages" they just mean generally that certain conditions that prevail there seem to us like they should belong to the distant past. (e.g. absolute rulers, secular laws based on religious doctrine, something akin to a feudal system, no electricity, etc.) Few have gone to the trouble to compare specific details of life in Iraq to specific historical periods.

The points indicated in red do not belong to a distant past, in my very humble opinion.

- Absolute ruling is a very contemporary phenomenon. Absolutism is old, but totalitarism, which is even worse, is a XXth century event. It has known various forms, the worse of them being, without any doubt, stalinism and nazism.

- Secular laws based on religious doctrine are still applied in, at least, one third of the world (examples such as charia, tribal law and traditional practice like excision are eloquent enough IMO).
These type of laws are not part of the Dark Ages or of any other time period: they are eternal (ie. secular). All societies know 'stupid but old' rituals: they are latent to the state of society, and based of generational effects (hu ? never mind: this means 'hereditary' I guess).

- Feudal systems ?
Feudal systems were based on agriculture. One of the very last feudal systems was China. Except in Africa, feudal systems have vanished. Even in Middle East !

- No electricity ?
All Iraqis have TV to watch their Raïs...

To sum it up, Dark Ages are definitely not the right terms to talk about Iraq, nor any other countries. Those are my alternates proposals:

- Iraq has primitive representation system.
- Iraq features an embryo_of popular sovereignty.
- Iraq is stuck in a regressive_form of economical development.

Those terms, although I'm not sure of their total validity and meaningfulness as I'm not a native English speaker, signify, in my very humble opinion again, that Iraq is not stuck in the Dark Ages (what an idea ) but stuck at the very first step of social and economical development.

For those who know the Rustow model of development, I guess Iraq is step 2 (preparing for take-off).