Saracen: Arabian Knight

New Look

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:05:47 PST

I'm going to say something I've said before several of my posts here on this site: it's been a while, but I realized that I've missed writing. There's no better medium to teach and learn, in my opinion... well, other than actual lecturing. The site has been updated with a new look and some clipping. Unlike my previous designs, it's green in color. Green is the color of Earth, of new growth, of new life. From one perspective, blue - a color of Water, of giving life - is followed by green, by life. This is not just in light of the Arab Spring, but of other things, and I hope to talk about them in the few months to come.

Salaam, from Saracen

Hope Runs Deep: The Human Spirit's Indomitability Manifest in Chile

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:02:38 PDT

The state of human affairs over the past decade have overall not been taking a turn for the better. War, violence, scandal, shallow gossip, tragedy, and other profit-generating stories congest newspaper headlines and the nightly broadcasts. With the recent economic crises, things aren't looking up, either. As the human population on Earth grows ever so nearer to the carrying capacity, humanity as a whole seems to be taking a downhill swerve...

...or is it?

There is at least 1 or 2 in 10 people out there who have heard about the recent story regarding the Chilean miners. Being trapped for at least 15 days underground about 2 months ago, almost no one was sure that they were going to survive. The lack of oxygen, food, and water would surely deprive them of life if the toxic gases, ash, soot, and dust didn't choke them to death first. Around the world, many people watched and, when news of them still being alive 17 agonizing days after the entrapment surfaced ("All 33 of us are fine in the shelter" [1]), prayed for their safety.

Today, on October 13, 2010, hope reached the surface. Flipping the news to BBC, the headline rolled out as follows:

The first 17 of 33 miners trapped underground for more than two months in northern Chile have been winched to the surface amid scenes of jubilation.

Deacon Keith Fournier of the Catholic Online International had an interesting perspective on the issue, and one which I agree with on the basis of hope and faith in God in the face of adversity if not his Catholic evangelism. He wrote that the event was fateful in that it was

as though it were all planned to inspire a global community enmeshed in cynicism, despair and fatigue. These 33 miners, trapped in the womb of the earth since August 5, 2010, began to emerge, one by one, before the eyes of one billion people throughout the world. The best of humanity contending with what has seemed for so many as the worst of times; and goodness, faith, hope, love, virtue, human ingenuity and collaboration won the day. The events in the Chilean desert have already had an extraordinary impact. [2]

Even I admit that I had my initial cynicism, not knowing how long the miners were stuck for, and the impact it had on their well-being. There is no doubt that what happened - nothing short of life and death hanging in the balance, as well as their faith being put to the test - will change the lives of the miners and their families. It may also be optimistic - perhaps too optimistic - for one to assume that this will change the lives of many people in Chile and the world over, and I'd like to think it will.

Unsurprisingly, so does the good Deacon Fournier. It seems that no matter how bad your life is at the moment, there is always someone going through much more of a hell than you are, and that hope does run deep even to them. The Deacon writes that

[in] an age where it seemed like men and women had forgotten God, clearly, God has not forgotten us. We, along with all of those miners and their families, have been given a fresh start and an invitation to begin again.

Clinging to life with their faith in God, they saw the fruits of the seeds they have sown and are now ready to sow more the world over.

Discouraging, however, is the scene on the net. While a lot of people follow this in earnest, others continue with their daily lives and miss on a rare opportunity to see that the human spirit is truly indomitable; that compassion knows no socioeconomic, political, religious, or racial boundaries; that human wealth pales to human dignity; that the brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity, no matter how disparate and divided, truly exists if we seek it ourselves; and that solidarity with those who don't have anyone to turn to can truly make this world a better place. I like to conclude with a quotation in the same article by Deacon Fournier:

Miner Mario Sepulveda speaking to the International Press put it so simply, "I was with God and with the devil. And I reached out for God." Now, it is our turn to do the reaching.

Amen to that.

Salaam, from Saracen

A War to End All Wars? What a "Just War" Means to Me...

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 08:41:58 PDT

Benjamin Franklin once said that there is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace. The concept of "just war" seems to be too idealistic: given the variety of historical accounts that cover any particular war in known history, there will always be an opposing narrative calling out injustices on part of the "other". The fallible nature of man and the subjectivity of human perception have guaranteed the perpetuation of such a pattern of injustice against those who are wronged... wrongfully. After all, war is political. It's a means to an end for those seeking resources, land, wealth, influence, and power.

Yet oftentimes we are led to believe that armies around the 1st Century B.C. onwards have started to adopt more restrictive measures in dealing with enemy positions. Is it possible that the people of these times became aware of the monstrosity of warfare, and the barbarity of killing needlessly and endlessly? It may seem that way, especially considering the edicts concerning warfare that have been taught in books like the Bible and the Koran [1]. The necessity of such methods are also apparent when resources are scarce, and hearts and minds need to be won more than battles assuming that - to the sides involved - the hearts and minds are "worth winning". All are plausible reasons that account for a shift in wartime morality. While history has had its fair share of massacres - the Crusades (Edessa by the Muslims and Jerusalem by the Crusader Christians), the pogroms, etc. - and atrocities, it was generally accepted that the field of battle was usually separate from the territories possessed by any sides involved.

However, at the turn of the 20th Century, things changed. WWI added a new dimension to modern warfare to the extent that it changed the concept of it almost completely. Towards the middle of the War, nations - especially Russia, Britain, France, and Germany - invested their entire economic output towards the war effort. People in the streets were recruited to work in factories and farms, and those who were already there worked extra hours [2]. Even children (as in the case of Britain) worked as well. Stockpiles of food, water, and medical supplies were preferentially diverted to the frontlines, while military industrialization reached peak efficiency to produce ammunition, guns, vehicles, and the sort [3]. Civilians were a vital part in this process, supplying their comrades with food, water, munitions, and equipment to fight at the fronts and stay fighting [4]. In that respect, civilians have become an asset to the military, or an "objective" to the "other" side, depending on the perspective.

Accordingly, military tactics have changed to suit this new stratagem of warfare. It sounds "natural": the invention of tanks was followed shortly by anti-tank weaponry (rifles, bazookas, missiles, rockets, etc.), fighter planes by anti-air defense, infantry by anti-infantry (no joke), entrenchment (or camping) by artillery, and so on. The civilian empowerment of the military meant an extended yet nevertheless exhaustive supply of equipment to carry out war, and the capability to produce such equipment would depend on the resources, the ability to extract these resources, the efficiency at which these resources are extracted and used, the civilian population size and density, the number of (operational) factories, and the technological capabilities of the populace. In later wars, especially WWII, militaries have taken it upon themselves to counter that stratagem: if they can target the civilian populace (i.e. reduce civilian manpower), that will hinder the "enemy's" capability to produce supplies and eventually the rate at which supplies are being sent to the front lines. On par with the "rules" of attrition, that will eventually deplete the "enemy's" supplies faster and as such will enable the said side to outlast the "enemy" and therefore "win".

There are, however, other ramifications for targeting civilians, whether directly or indirectly. Loss of civilian life is itself demoralizing and maximizes shock-value: one can only imagine what would happen if their normally quiet civilian suburb was suddenly reduced to rubble and everything said person (survivors, especially) knew or had was taken away from him/her (be it his/her life, too), and to those who are connected to them on the front lines (in the military). Given the civilian populace is a soldier's closest connection, any damage to them (especially to kin) would prove severely demoralizing and disorienting. A siege of a civilian populace would torture said civilians and place them under unnecessary suffering and a risk of succumbing to starvation, disease, depression, or any other indirect evils of blockading and cutting off a town, village, or city from supplies.

In my opinion, I don't believe such targeting of civilians - no matter how much militaries and governments try to justify their operations in this regard - are morally acceptable let alone justifiable. In a 2005 paper, Alexander Downes, Ph.D. and professor at Duke University (NC), argues that

noncombatants are most likely to be targeted—and high numbers of civilian casualties likely to result—when wars become costly, protracted wars of attrition, on the one hand, or when states bent on conquering enemy territory view the population as presenting a threat to their secure control of that land. Wars of attrition, characterized by static, trench warfare, sieges, or guerrilla resistance by one side tend to devour manpower and take a long time to prosecute to completion. The temptation to strike at an adversary’s civilian population in these circumstances in order to lower its morale or reduce the adversary’s ability to fight often becomes irresistible in order to economize on manpower/equipment losses. Stalemated wars of attrition also trigger escalation to civilian victimization out of a sense of desperation that every possible means must be employed that might lead to victory or avoid defeat. Finally, governments engaged in state-building efforts—involving conquest, annexation, and possible colonization of territory—may victimize groups they believe pose a threat of future insurrection. Statistical analyses of interstate wars since 1815 supports these arguments, and also shows that liberal democracies are not less likely to target civilians or kill fewer of them, whereas clashes of civilizations do not conduce to civilian victimization. Democracies, in fact, may be more likely to target noncombatants in costly wars of attrition.[5]

What Mr. Downes is arguing essentially is that no matter who the killer, there can be no justification for the (avoidable) deaths of non-combatants. Even those who claim to be "just" are as susceptible to committing grave acts of injustice on virtue of the so-called "fog of war": the human mind is not meant to withstand the physical and psychological trauma, but seeing such phenomena repeat themselves over and over - with allegations against the other for "wanton killing" being thrown around - only disheartens and disillusions one's thoughts regarding such grandiose impossibilities (i.e. sparing human lives).

Having said all that, what does a "just war" mean in the present context? Let's consider what justice means in the context of war. War (or more specifically battle) is usually comprised of an attacking and a defending side in that the latter is finding on its own grounds and the former is not. Of course, the so-called "fine line" between the two can get blurred easily by tide-turning battles, events, and interventions. An aggressor can never be justified on any grounds: no crime other than the robbery of one's own land or murder of one's people (statements, I realize, that can be twisted and manipulated in so many ways), in my humble opinion, is worth invading a nation, killing its inhabitants, and causing undue property damage. Regardless of the role however, there are conventions of warfare that have been introduced (though not efficiently).

The four Geneva Conventions, for example, set about establishing the rules of modern warfare and the nature of the battlefield as mentioned above. "The frontlines" may be "history", but that doesn't imply that methods should be put in place that cause unwarranted and unnecessary death. For example, take the fourth convention regarding the place of civilians in modern warfare, which is the crux of this essay.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. [6]

Other articles regard people living in occupied territories, as is the case with several areas the world over (Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, and others):

Art. 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

This article, for example, sounds commonsense in the sense that if one is to occupy a person's home and control a majority of its affairs, the least the occupier can do in such a completely hypothetical case is supply the original occupants with food, water, and medical supplies to sustain them and not let them starve, thirst, fester, and/or rot.

However, it must be taken into account that the Geneva Conventions, like any other parchment, can be misinterpreted by the aggressive party: in pursuit of a rebel or militant group, a government army (e.g. Sri Lanka's) can consider - albeit wrongly - the civilians in the immediate vicinity of these militants as "hostages" and attack in spite of the Fourth Geneva Conventions which harshly criticizes the use of collective punishment:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.[7]

There are a lot of other articles that can potentially be twisted, but I won't go into details of how they could be as I've bored you long enough with this essay.

So, what do I believe is justified? For starters, the avoidance of civilian casualties is a must: injustice comes when murder or any other form of "punishment" is committed against those who did not commit a crime, and that goes to every military, rebel group, and militia out there. Second, the use of chemical, nuclear, biological, or deforming weapons should be restricted: it damages ecosystems, defaces people, and renders large pockets of land uninhabitable or unsuitable for growth for many years, and this is not something conducive in a world where the population is booming [8]. The sheer terror exerted by these weapons is also a good reason not to use them. Third, attacks on civilian structures should be prohibited even if they are "meant" to attack a combatant (and as far as intention goes, it means squat when the bomb lands on a building chock-full of civilians). The death of one combatant does not justify the deaths of hundreds of others. Finally, at the end of a war, those who instigated the war and took part in war crimes should be brought to justice and put to the cage... or the sword.

Nevertheless, the world we live in is not ideal, and therefore, the application of such seemingly outlandish rules can not be put in place.

As I was writing this essay, I kept in mind that war is always inevitable, no matter how adamant I am in my opposition to it. History has shown us that changes in the balance of power will, in one way or another, lead to conflict, a trait ingrained in the nature of man (and woman, but moreso man b/c history's mass-murderers were mainly men). As Thomas Hobbes once said, "When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death." While that may not reflect my outlook, it certainly seems to be the way the wind is blowing. Finally, I'd like to end with a quote by Ernest Hemingway: "Never think that war, no matter how necessary nor how justified, is not a crime."

Salaam, from Saracen

"Elections Don't Build Nations": Why Democracy is not the Solution to Third-World Development

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:07:02 PST

It is not new to see on the television screen a man or a woman in a tight suit speak "on behalf" of the "people", stating promises and chanting slogans to rile the masses before them to support their transitions to power. The world, however, changes for them once they get comfortable in the leather chairs of their presidential offices. They are swamped with the demands of lobbyists and the common people, and are held ambivalent over what pacifies the rage of the common man and what betters the common man's socioeconomic status in light of an improving nation (both of them mutually exclusive concepts). Consider, however, that voters for a particular politician who aligns himself/herself with a particular political affiliation tend to support the campaigned ideology. Yet, politicians are still stuck in the aforementioned quagmire, even in the light of scenarios which can not be solved at the time being by promoting a certain economic or social system or belief. For example, George Bush Jr. instituted the Patriot Act, which allowed for surveillance of incoming and outgoing communications in the U.S. While this decision was popular amongst his voters, it was not seen as productive for his nation's progress, namely because it was a breach of civil liberties and privacy, and also created a tense atmosphere of distrust.

There are also times that politicians will make unpopular moves for the sake of the improvement of the country itself. A politician might choose to increase taxes in spite of the anger of the voters that hoisted him/her to power. Assuming that such taxes are spent on the improvement of the foundations of social, economical, educational, and other civil institutes, these would prove beneficial to the nation's progress in the long run, no matter how harsh the measure taken turns out to be. Cromwell's Britain was vastly popular at its rise to power, and progressed in spite of the harsh measures he took to reinforce the nation's economy at home and abroad.

The above circumstances beg several questions, the most obvious ones being what decision would constitute as being "for the good of the country", and what one views as "good for the country" to begin with. This requires a transcendence from the social/economic political compass, any associated religions with said compass, and a look at what makes a country progress. It is a given that the only thing constant in this universe, as Einstein put it, is change. What's imperative, therefore, is to address the requisites of a nation vis-a-vis its survival, growth, productivity, and independence as opposed to a government focused almost solely on political, social, philosophical, and cultural demographic representation.

To put it simply, I personally think that elections don't build nations. It's a simple formula: do we want to invest more in genuinely establishing a solid foundation and infrastructure that will sustain a nation indefinitely; or do we want to invest more in political campaigns, slogans, and (electoral) institutions that only serve their meaning every now and then? An analogy would be conceiving a child when the parents don't have any form of child support (i.e. a job or generous loans) available. There is no solid foundation present to sustain the child's development into a healthy adult who can look out for and sustain himself/herself. This is to say that a nation requires self-sustainable industries and resources as well as the infrastructure to make use of said resources. A nation that makes use of income from industry, trade, etc. can therefore use it to build itself towards independence, whereupon concerns of liberalism and democracy can be brought to the table should the people demand such a thing.

Take Iraq as an example. When the American army invaded, they leveled most of the existing educational, social, and military infrastructure (whether by force or by dismantlement), and established in its stead a government centered on the principle of elections. With the looming sectarian rift among several Sunnite insurgencies, Kurdish (Peshmerga), and Shiite groups (e.g. Muqtada al-Sadr) vying for power instead of progress, the case seemed less like free elections and more like throwing a rotten carcass to a pack of famished, ravenous wolves, none of them interested in sharing the piece of meat on the ground. The lack of an existing educational and industrial infrastructure only aggravated the situation as more divisions were stoked.

Yet in spite of all this, the mantra "free elections for all" goes on. Such statements negate history. Most of the democratic nations of today (i.e. democratic AND liberal by Western standards) like England (not entirely), France, Canada, the U.S., and Germany (despite its ups and downs) have been built upon decades if not centuries of development: self-sustenance (whether by industry or colonization [an important factor]) was reached prior to the establishment of liberal values. Another example is Ancient Rome. It took decades and centuries till the Romans built a foothold over most of their early empire and reduced the gaps between the Patricians (nobles) and Plebes (working class). The adage "Rome wasn't built in a day" fits this perfectly.

Why would elections be more effective post-development and not before them? The idea, as I mentioned before, is that a nation and its people need to stand up on their own feet before they can entertain notions of governmental type. Think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: self-actualization comes before more abstract and idealistic visions. To do that, a nation needs proper industry, proper educational, medical, social, economic, financial, legal, protective (security), civil service, agricultural (or - when absent - a sufficient source of food, water, and other daily necessities), and electrical (to name a few) infrastructures that depend on each other and not heavily on outside sources. A proper, more accessible education system can balance any economic gaps and give people the power to make informed decisions in their lives (whether political or not) that can embetter themselves and their communities. Sufficient economy and financial infrastructure can maintain said balance, while legal infrastructure maintains order. Agricultural, civil service, and medical infrastructures maintain the population and its immediate needs. Therefore, I think that post-development and independence in all the above aspects are more resilient to changes in government and governmental functions than lack thereof.

However, is this to say that freedom to choose (i.e. liberal elections) are guaranteed post-development? It is really tempting to say "yes". At this point, an interesting trend to note is that most dependent, developing nations today have more autocratic forms of government than independent, developed ones, the more obvious ones being that of the U.S. and/or Canada, for example, compared to, say, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. Looking at the past, however, we see something different: the larger and more developed governments were headed by more autocratic regimes with less involvement from the people (think Ancient Egypt) until the advent of Athenian/Periclean Democracy (which was still in itself an oligarchy) around 500 B.C. While a more developed nation may entail more empowered citizens, that alone depends on the direction such development goes into. While both Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece made use of their respective resources to development (primarily agrarian), the latter group established their society on a less centralized political climate (although still relatively centralized due to its populism) while the former based its political structure strongly on particular religious beliefs and monarchical deification [DISCLAIMER: this is not to validate the incorrect, oversimplifying, and unfair assumption that politics "is an outflow of culture", a subject for future discussion. There are multitudes of historical circumstances - largely biogeographical ones - that must be taken into consideration in order to determine more accurate and less lethargic explanations for historical precedents.] It can be assumed, therefore, that the direction of development can determine the direction of a country's political system, albeit there are cases where the two have been shown to be mutually exclusive due to particular external circumstances that hinder or accelerate a particular nation's development.

I think it's safe to say that elections don't make good foundation stones for national infrastructure, but could ideally act as roof shingles that change seasonally. But what do you think? Do you think that elections can be part of a nation's development given the abovementioned points? Or is it impossible?

Salaam, from Saracen

Announcement: Blog Name Change

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:02:38 PDT

As of today, the name of the blog will be changed to Saracen's Corner. The address will remain the same, but will be changed in the future accordingly.

Salaam, from Saracen

Rant on the Siege of Gaza: Propaganda and Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:19:08 PDT

I apologize for not posting as of late, and I know this topic is way out of date now. Life has a tendency of getting in the way of less important endeavors like blogging, not to say that what I'm about to address is of little significance compared to living your daily routine day by day. Considering what is going on these days, I'm sure you'd be surprised as to why I am posting this now as opposed to day it started. Well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls... I'm back, and what I'm about to say and show you is not pretty, nor for the faint of heart, if you know what I mean.

Last January, the Gaza Strip, an area no larger than Washington, D.C. and populated by 1.5 million Palestinians of whom at least 80% live below the poverty line and can not sustain or transport themselves [1], has been under attack by the Israeli army. The casualties number in at least 1,000 Gazans killed, mostly civilians and roughly half of the total being children [2]. Since the conflict began, at least 3 Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli soldiers were killed [3]. However, there is beyond doubt that since Israel's army has killed a greater number of civilians, it bears a larger burden in the cycle of death and violence that rampages on. Entire families have been wiped out [4]. Homes, schools, mosques, universities, seaports, and even hospitals and other places of refuge or aid have been targeted and/or destroyed [5]. Still, tons more have been injured, had their limbs amputated, traumatized, shocked, orphaned, and dispossessed as a result of the attacks. Truly, this is a massacre in the making.

Interestingly enough, these attacks have sparked worldwide anger with an intensity of the likes which has never been witnessed before in the history of this 60+-year-long conflict [6]. The Arab populations have never came out so defiant in the face of their governments, and protested for the Palestinians suffering in Gaza as a result of the inhumane siege being carried out by the Israeli army. The world over took to the streets in as persistent a fashion as possible to demonstrate against the Israeli army's actions in the Gaza Strip, thereby augmenting to the already considerable international pressure on the oppressive regime. Like these protests, however, the Israeli army didn't up in its attacks either, as it entered a phase of ground operations supposedly aimed at striking Hamas [7].

So, why is Israel doing this? Why is it carrying out a full assault, with high-tech weaponry and military ordnance, on the Palestinians in Gaza? The official story is that Israel is launching attacks to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israel, an action Hamas undertook following the end of the truce [8]. The rockets were taken as a threat and that they were launched with the intention of "destroying the Jewish state" or "driving the Jews into the sea". Never mind that Hamas knows well that these rocket attacks can not fulfill such a daunting task, and that its actions are in fact fueled by the occupation [9]. It was only a matter of less than 24 hours, actually, that these rockets were being fired, barely causing any damage and missing all the way, when Israeli politicians made the absurd statement about having their nation being rained upon by rockets "every single day". It was a perfect pretext for the Israeli government, nonetheless, to launch a massive operation supposedly against Hamas, the initial goal being to wipe them out of Gaza. They seemed to be doing fine in that the rocket attacks were diminished in number. They also managed to "weaken Hamas", if such weakening involves targeting a civilian police force.

Let's face it: no one, and I mean NO ONE, who has a conscience and a pair really cares about Israel's military objectives in the scope of the consequences of its actions. It is ludicruous to assume that Israel's military objectives are of "self-defense" and involve the "sole targeting of Hamas" when civilians and civilian infrastructure are bearing the brunt of these attacks. It's even dumber to assume that civilian casualties incurred from "precision bombs" are "collateral damage" and "accidental" (yes, and I suppose bombs discriminate between civilians and militants, killing the former accidentally and the latter on purpose). Such buzzwords are nothing short of NyQuil for the IAF hellbird pilots that drop bombs and launch missiles at largely civilian targets, and knowingly so given the density of Gaza's population and its overwhelmingly civilian majority [10].

All one has to do is look at the news. Look at the targets of these strikes. Zeitoun, a Gaza suburb, has been reduced to rubble in its entirety. More people have become displaced from their homes and crowd themselves in schools and other public areas. Medical (and other) supplies in Gaza hospitals have run short and are still running short as thousands of wounded pour in, and many more are left to die. Tens are buried in rubble. Entire families have been wiped out. Food, water, aid, and shelter have become scarce [11, 12]. Fires from white phosphorus burned up buildings and people [13]. Children were orphaned, and others were left to die next to their mothers, while others have had the displeasure to watch their mothers die in front of them [14].

And in the midst of all this, Tzipi "the lying bitch" Livni (I apologize for my language for I can not find a kinder word to describe that hag) has the nerve to say that there is "no humanitarian crisis in Gaza", and that "Hamas is to blame" [15]. Even worse is that many other spineless politicians have followed suit, including our own pathetic "president" Mahmoud Abbas, Egypt's Husni Mubarak, and countless other Arab leaders [16]. You can also always count on Israel's backers in the states like Dubya and even Obama ("Israel has a right to defend itself") to say something absolving Israel of criticism, and indeed they did. Those who love Israel (out of fear) rushed to justify the unjustifiable actions of the government and army, both having garnered unwavering, almost devotional support.

Of course, this callousness and lack of concern for the dead is clear to those who can see the destruction for what it is without getting brainwashed with hogwash anti-Palestinian racism and Israeli propaganda, and that's when Hasbara falls apart like the house of cards that it is. Let's take a look at the notion that Hamas is to blame for the plight of the Palestinians. The argument is that since Hamas fired the rockets at Israel and hides behinds civilians, it is to blame for the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians. With a convenient scapegoat like Hamas, one that is demonized and centralized in Western media for being an "Izlamofashist" terrorist organization, Israel appears innocent as it is a "Western, civilized, liberal, democratic" nation "defending itself" against an "Izlamofashist, barbaric, totalitarian, terrorist enemy" that "threatens its destruction". At the same time, it puts Israel above criticism, liability, responsibility, and the like, even though it is responsible for its actions. Think about it: if someone pinches you, you don't beat the crap out of him or kill him as you are responsible for your actions as much as he is. Better scenario: if a man (God forbid) kills your son, you don't go around killing his entire family, destroying his house and his SUV with a wrecking ball, and making his life a living hell. If you were the Israeli government or army, there's a good chance that you killed his son by preventing him and his family from taking him to the hospital, or denying him any means to get supplies (food, medicine, water, etc.). Anyways, even if you are retaliating, you are still responsible for what you do as well as your "reaction" is also an action in and of itself.

Let's shove aside the fallacious Orientalist diatribe that admittedly and effectively paints such an image in your mind and look at the situation itself. To set the context of the present situation, it suffices to say that there is no question - in my mind at least - that the Israeli occupation since the late 60's has set the status quo of today: an impoverished and fragmented Palestinian society disenfranchised by roadblocks, military incursions, house demolitions, annexation of land (agricultural and otherwise), resource monopolization (diversion of aquifers, etc.), stemming of aid, and settlement expansion, all continuing to this day [17]. In 2005, Israel pulled out its settlements from Gaza but maintained control of its borders and eventually blockading them in 2007, restricting supplies coming and going [18]. During the ceasefire that started in June, 2008, Israel still maintained the blockade of Gaza and continued its operations in the West Bank, while Hamas and other groups kept their guns down [19]. Moreover, the UN reported 7 violations of the ceasefire by Israel in Gaza during its first few days. However, throughout this "ceasefire", Israel maintained its siege of Gaza, blockading it on all sides and pushing Egypt to maintain its closure of the Rafah crossing [20]. Many patients died during this time period [21], and over the past two years from the end of the ceasefire, over 1,000 Palestinians - 200 children - died at the hands of the Israeli army, whether directly or indirectly [22].

In the midst of all this, Israel's supporters claim that Hamas fired rockets unprovoked and unwarranted at Israel post-ceasefire, which - as shown above - was something that Israel (i.e. government and army, not the people) far from honored. Therefore, since Hamas fired the rockets, Israel gets free rein to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians, using Hamas as an excuse and a supposed take-down of Hamas as a pretext and/or "objective" - which apparently is the "only thing that matters". The house of card falls apart - as I said before - when we realize that the people who are suffering are not Hamas militants like Israel supposedly "promised", but rather civilians and their infrastructure. Another argument comes up: Hamas hid weapons in those homes and they exploded upon contact with Israeli ordnance. If Israel knew that there were "powder kegs" there, why did they fire on them in the first place with their so-called "precision ordnance"?

When the casualty counts kept coming in, the house of cards fell down hard and thus was exposed the utter racism of the Israeli government and its supporters towards the Palestinians. When the UNRWA HQ was bombed and civilians were killed, Israeli spokespersons came out and "justified" the incident by claiming that the casualties were only "local Palestinians" and that they - or even "some of them" - were "affiliated with Hamas one way or another" [23]. What's wrong with being a Palestinian?! Even worse, the forum I venture (Political Crossfire) was laden with remarks exhibiting anti-Palestinian racism, veiled genocidal threats, and fallacies that weakly "absolve" Israel's army from responsibility for the bloodshed that has befallen the Gazans. The worst goes as far as to dehumanize the Palestinians to the point that they're nothing but "terrorists" and "Hamas supporters" who just want to see Israel destroyed, or they happen to be people who "elected Hamas".

First, if Hamas is to be blamed for what Israel was doing in Gaza, would you have us believe that Hamas militants are piloting those bombers, driving those Merkavas, and attacking Palestinian civilians while dressed up as Israeli soldiers? I doubt it. Israel chose to respond to Hamas's rocket attacks in such an indiscriminate manner. Second, if electing or supporting a party like Hamas is a crime worthy of death, then every Israeli civilian who has died in the past few decades of this conflict is just as "guilty" since Israelis elected prime ministers who were notorious not only for their aggressive policies against the Palestinians (as they continued to perpetuate the injustices in the form of occupation and violation of human rights) but also - especially in the case of people like Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin - for their terrorist actions against Palestinians during the heydays of Zionist colonization. Of course, I don't buy that argument: a civilian - whether Palestinian or Israeli - is a civilian regardless of political affiliation or support.

Make no mistake: I'm not supporting Hamas or their campaign against Israel as it is right now as it is one that is dodging and detrimental to peace, although not more than Netanyahu's recent "diplomacy" and that of Israel's government in the past few decades of its existence. I blame Hamas for the rocket attacks only, but not breaching the ceasefire. Israel already violated that ceasefire continuously by maintaining its blockade of Gaza's borders and denying the Palestinians from reaching sustainable aid. Such action did provoke Hamas, but instead of reaching for a diplomatic solution, it chose a militarily political "solution": fire rockets. Israel responded with an attack that would effectively crush the hopes and spirits of the Gazans and their will to survive. Given all that has transpired, it is clear that while both parties share blame, Israel carries the larger burden as it has nothing to lose from talking to representatives (PA, Hamas, etc.) of a fragmented society that doesn't even pose a threat to its existence.

Bottom line: what happened in Gaza - in my opinion - is utterly inexcusable. The majority of casualties were civilian, and the way Israel came down militarily on an overall defenseless populace can not be intellectually "justified" in any manner possible without being faulty in its premises to begin with. Even if this was in Israel's interests of "surviving", that doesn't mean it should violate the right of others to survive. Never mind that these rocket attacks don't pose a threat to Israel's survivability more than the infrastructure-destroying ordnance dropped by IAF Hellbirds and fired by Israeli tank operators. In efforts to promote peace between Gaza and Israel, a ceasefire mediated by an international organization - like the UN - should be enforced while Gazans rebuild, resupply, and empower themselves through society-building. Israel preferably should help in their recovery without interfering politically. This will in turn make conditions favorable for the Palestinians there and give them no reason to hate Israel - at least from that point on. Hamas would effectively be isolated, and - seeing no rocket attacks, blockades, air strikes, etc. - so would Israel's extremist elements, thereby enforcing negotiations and hopefully a lasting peace. I don't see that possibility with the now exposed racism and belligerency of Israeli propaganda.

What do you think? Do you think Hamas should be held responsible for this whole mess, even though neither Hamas nor the Palestinians of Gaza are able to fend for themselves to be held responsible? Or should Israel burden the larger blame it deserves?

Salaam, from Saracen

On Glorifying the Military

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:08:46 PDT

DISCLAIMER: This topic is not against the nature or necessity of a military force. This topic addresses a disturbing social and political phenomenon that absolves armies from the same accountability that applies to every armed group. But then again, this world isn't a just and fair place. Moreover, take note that I do not support nor condone any military, militant group, or insurgent organization, nor any actions which - BS semantics aside - are clearly unjustifiable. Lastly, before you read on, I acknowledge my biases for "underdogs". This bias, however, does not detract from the gist of the topic itself.

After surfing over several political forums, mainly "politicalcrossfire.com" (where, as many of you might already know, I post occasionally), I've come across a rather disturbing trend. There is a prevalent notion that the military of a nation is somehow above the law and for some reason does not have the ability to commit acts of terrorism or war crimes. Equally disturbing are how some of those who follow suit also go as far as to praise the military's "victories" in completing its "objectives" and necessitating those actions. What it does doesn't matter: after all, from a rather nationalist perspective, the military is uniformed and part of a government, so it has to be legal.

My foolish attempt at sarcasm aside, what do these empty statements - devoid of any logic or objectivity for that matter - really mean to us as second/third-party observers of a violent conflict involving armies of one sort or other? (If you haven't read the disclaimer above, I suggest you read it. NOW.) Such discourse seems to have a large degree of polarization involved. The commanding and demanding nature of military jingo is being used - sorry, abused excessively in such statements defending such actions. Words like "confirmed kill" (think of the fleeing Iraqis who were shot in Falluja and Najaf a few years back; 1) and "collateral damage" (any Iraqi or Palestinian civilian caught in an American or Israeli military blast; 2) permeate such spheres and absolve the military or its individuals from any wrongdoing. Even claiming "victory" instantly shoves aside criticism, as is the recent case involving the Sri Lankan army's "victory" over the Tamil Tigers (3). The power of words in this discourse is therefore undeniable.

Why, then, does this happen? It is arguable that a lot of us have become so desensitized to violence that we can not empathize let alone sympathize with the "other" group that lies on the other end of the barrel (4, 5). As Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Renaissance humanist and Catholic theologian, once said, "War is sweet to them that know it not." Many of us have grown accustomed to the relative safety of our homes, communities, neighborhoods, towns, and cities that we couldn't - for one moment - think about what it would be like to have all our conveniences taken away from us in one fell swoop. There's also that disease "nationalism" (6) and its offshoot "patriotism" (7), sentiments that polarize our worldviews to a dangerous, inhumane extent (i.e. racism, racial supremacy, Social Darwinism, etc.). Think about it: if one is to worship a country, its government, and its people blindly, what's to stop said person from deconstructing any feelings towards human beings (originating) outside (of) his/her national borders, especially if this "other" group is embroiled in a conflict with the former's country's army? Another explanation (I'd be stupid not to leave this out) would be militarism in all its forms: "defensive", imperial, fascist, communist, colonial, aggressive, etc. (8). If the desire of a nation and its government is to maintain a strong military that defends and/or promotes national interests, it wouldn't question its military lest it appear "weak" or "inept". Finally, the discourse itself may necessitate such action by causing, instigating, or promoting any one of the above factors. One such discourse, Orientalism, highlights some sort of "eternal danger" posed by Muslims and Arabs ("Orientalsm") to the West, and why "they" must be constantly subjugated and subdued lest they pose a threat to the West (9).

To better picture this last possible reason, which I think is the most important as it pertains directly to actual glorifications of the military in writing, think of the Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion ended in April, 2003, yet their lives don't mean anything compared to the 4,000+ dead in the World Trade Center. Admittedly, many of us have it better off than many Iraqis and other people suffering the world over, but news of terrorist attacks that kill a group of civilians are seemingly failing to spark shock and outrage. To make matters worse, a culture of American nationalism and militarism that pervaded the Bush era seemed to justify these deaths in the eyes of many Americans and other people who supported this war, and this appeared in tons of discourse outlets, whether on television, the internet, newspapers, or any other form of media (10).

To better understand the ridicule, blindness, pomp, circumstance, and all-out smugness behind such glorification of military forces (whether they committed a war crime or not), let us now look from the "other" lens. We've seen all these words - "collateral damage", "victory", "confirmed kill", "precision", "military excellence", "strategic brilliance", etc. - in modern-day militaristic discourse. Some of it may have meaning when the parties involved are solely military and NOT civilian. Even then (and this goes especially to those who kiss rifle butts, if you catch my drift), ask yourselves:

What does these words mean to those (civilians) who died? What about their families? Those who lost homes, lives, and livelihoods b/c of these "acts of bravery"?

To quote Gandhi again:

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

What are you going to tell the mother of (say, a Palestinian) child who got killed in a missile strike? That he was just "collateral damage" (11)? What are you going to tell the Tamils who lost their homes and loved ones? That the Sri Lankan army won a "victory" against the Tamil Tigers (12)? What about those who were firebombed indiscriminately in Falluja? I couldn't come up with a "good" "excuse" for this one, but I'd like to be "enlightened" on this matter. What about those who practice an unjust military administration and occupation? Do you want to necessitate it by calling those occupants who are made homeless, destitute, and desperate "scum of the Earth" or "savages"?

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to suggest why such talk is cheap. First off, it is unfruitful when it comes to two conflicting sides being pushed towards (re)conciliation. The last thing you want to hear in such a situation is one side excusing violence on the "other". Second, it emphasizes the social decay defined by the factors that cause militarism and praise of the armed forces. For example, as much as desensitization to violence may catalyze or facilitate odes to the fatigues and camoes, so too does such lauding lead us to become more indifferent to violence. Third, such views greatly lend themselves to large degrees of subjectivity (obviously). Fourth, and foremost, it signifies a disbelief in justice. After all, a government and its attendant armed forces are only human, and as such need to be held to a higher standard; that is, they need to be accountable. Of course, such isn't the way of the world today, but no matter how many semantic facades they hide behind, that doesn't stop the government or the military from doing the blatantly unjustifiable. The same logic here applies to all armed groups - insurgencies, militants, rebels, etc. - and therefore any glorification of such should be treated with the same caution.

I would like to clarify one more thing: it is agreeable that war may be a part of mankind's history, but there have been many wars that have followed strict guidelines (such as that of the Koran; 13). I do believe that a "just war" - topic for another discussion - is possible, and such praise of the military might be deserved in such instance. Of course, one must be careful not to get carried away in such lunacy, else we end up with the same militaristic regimes that dominated Europe in the late 30's.

There is much to be said about "glorifying the military", but beyond the concerns I've raised, this concludes the topic for now. I strongly advise you all to abstain from all such empty rhetoric: it serves to fuel hate and friction between people, and that's the last thing we need. Moreover, over the long run, such shows of bravado and haughtiness sow seeds of hatred that can embroil and lengthen conflict. But what do you think? Can glorification of a military force in the face of what others deem as unjustifiable be justified let alone considered "objective"?

Salaam, from Saracen

The Versailles Treaty: Was it Enough for France?

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:14:12 PDT

The First World War was one of the costliest wars if not the costliest war in the last two millennia. Both Allied and Central powers lost much in terms of manpower, military strength, production capability, and economic stability.[1] Given historical tensions between Germany and France dating back to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the French leadership saw an opportunity in the end of the war to weaken Germany vis-à-vis the Versailles Treaty of 1919, the WWI postwar settlement.[2] The original stipulations of the Versailles Treaty were designed to weaken Germany militarily, politically, and economically to ensure that it was not strong enough to attack France or its neighbors. Such conditions included demilitarization of areas such as the Rhineland or the Saar Valley, limitations on the size of the German military, monetary reparations, and loss of territory.[3] British Prime Minister Lloyd George, American President Woodrow Wilson, and the new German Weimar government, among others, agreed to these stipulations[4]. However, a number of figures – such as the French President Georges Clemenceau and General Ferdinand Foch – claimed outright that the Treaty of Versailles could not and would not do enough to ensure the security of France or any of Germany’s other neighbors since Germany itself was fundamentally strong economically and militarily.[5] This paper argues that that the Treaty of Versailles, albeit not perfectly implemented, managed to sufficiently weaken Germany’s military and military command structure postwar with relation to those of France, while at the same time didn’t do much to weaken Germany’s economy in spite of its reparatory dues. Groundwork for the comparison of the strengths of these two nations will be established prior to addressing the argument. Following that will be an assessment of the events and the political relations that transpired during the postwar years when the Treaty was being implemented, and how these relations factor into the question of national strength.

Prior to addressing the thesis, it is important to establish the groundwork used for the comparison of national strengths in relation to national security. The measure of a nation’s security is based on its military strength, and the stability of its economical and political climates.[6] Besides defense, a military presence serves a deterring purpose.[7] Stronger militaries tend to be large, efficient, well-staffed, and more technologically advanced.[8] It can be assumed, therefore, that a larger, more organized, more sophisticated military would therefore present a greater deterrent than a smaller, simpler, disorganized one. This is not, however, a guarantee that another nation or body will attack the said nation, but rather that the chance of attacking that nation is reduced.[9] Consequently, the larger the population size of a country, the more human resources available for conscription as well as production of supplies such as weapons, munitions, food, and water.[10] The modern People’s Army of China exemplifies this notion. In analyzing statistics concerning population, troop numbers, equipment, and staffing, one can provide a quantitative comparison of military strengths of any two or more nations.[11]

In effect, a successful standing army is not without a steady stream of resources to cover its supplies and weaponry.[12] The nation of said army would preferably have stable, independent industries based on home-grown and home-found resources, with little to no dependence on outside sources such as foreign colonies and the resources found there[13]. Prime among these are agriculture, textiles, ore, transportation, and manufacturing, some of which – such as ore processing, transportation, and manufacturing – are interdependent on each other. A more stable and efficient economy is not only able to bolster a standing army, but is also more resilient in the face of resource attrition during wartime and in“Total War”[14]. World War One was one such war, and was in fact the first such war of attrition. Thus, assessing economic output and capability would prove a vital measure of national strength in this thesis. For this topic, gross domestic product (GDP) and industry are sufficient enough measures to obtain a valid assessment of economic strength.

While a stable political climate may not necessarily entail security, a country in political turmoil is worse off than one that is not. The degree of such turmoil would affect economic progress given the nation’s economic disposition. The more established an economy is, however, the more the degree of unrest, political or otherwise, required to completely destabilize it. Moreover, political process may hinder economic progress in particular areas, especially in the light of annexation of areas of vital economic and strategic importance[15]. Political climate in terms of international relations will be considered given the profound effect World War One had on the political leadership and structures of France and Germany.

The implementation of the Versailles Treaty managed to sufficiently weaken Germany military with respect to France. Part V of the Treaty of Versailles laid a number of military restrictions on Germany. By disarming the German military and reducing troop number, the Allied powers hoped to guarantee the security of the surrounding nations. It stipulated that the German military be reduced to 100,000 men, 4,000 of them being officers and zero heavy and field artillery, and that there should be no high staffing: no headquarter staff, no divisional headquarter staff, and no infantry division organization [16]. Before the armistice, Germany had 5,500,000 army men, 140,000 officers, 218 infantry divisions, 17 army headquarters staff, 71 divisional headquarter staff, 7,200 heavy artillery pieces, and 9,000 field artillery pieces. The Treaty was successfully implemented for the reduction of the size of the Germany military, the number of officers and headquarters staff, and the number of heavy artillery pieces[17]. Only 7 infantry divisions and 288 field artillery pieces remained by 1921. Reductions in Germany’s navy and air force were also overseen by the Treaty[18].

Despite the reduction in the size of the German military, Germany had more manpower than France alone. This might work against France should the aforementioned limitations on Germany’s military cease to function. Over the course of the war, Germany lost 2,050,897 military men and 426,000 civilians[19]. France lost 1,397,800 soldiers and 300,000 civilians. Moreover, 57% of France’s military casualties were under the age of 31[20]. Both sides claimed approximately 4.2 million militarily wounded. In 1918, Germany’s population stood at 65.2 million at the end of the war, while France’s was at 38.5 million[21].

Moreover, the French leaders had two outstanding caveats with the German military that they wanted to deal with: the issue of military education vis-à-vis training, and rotational army service. In the early Napoleonic wars against Prussia, Napoleon imposed upon Prussia in September, 1808, that she reduce her army to 42,000 men and not any higher. However, most likely due to lack of enforcement of the agreements at the time, Germany maintained an army of 150,000 men and passed much of its male population through service training in record times, and also mandated preliminary military instruction in its schools[22]. The French realized that the abovementioned stipulations were therefore not adequate since Germany could functionally have a larger army should war break out again. It is not surprising that Article 176, Part V, of the Versailles Treaty called for the “suppression of [German] military schools”, thereby preventing Germany from recruiting a larger effective army than mandated. Compulsory military service was also abolished[23]. The other issue is the region on Germany’s western border with France, the Rhineland, which France wanted demilitarized. Apart from its economic significance, the Rhineland also serves as a major military reinforcement point, with railroads geared towards resupply and relocation. Article 180 called for the disarmament of any outposts and fortifications within the Rhineland, thereby rendering it a demilitarized buffer zone between the two nations[24].

Although the German military was substantially weakened by the Treaty, the German economy remained strong compared to that of France’s in the face of the cost of the war and the reparation clauses of the Treaty. National income and economic output was higher for Germany throughout much of the early 20th Century, and this is reflected in the country’s GDP per capita. In 1913, Germany’s GDP per capita was 237 billion Geary-Khamis dollars (GK$), while that of France was 145 billion GK$. By the end of the war, in 1918, Germany’s GDP per capita was at 145 billion GK$ while France’s was at 92 billion GK$[25]. In spite of reparatory dues towards Britain, France, and other Allied powers, which – as articulated by Article 231 onwards of the Treaty – amounted to a total of 700 billion Francs of which 143 billion Francs would go to France[26], Germany’s GDP still remained relatively high well into the mid- to late-1920’s, capping at 262 billion GK$ by 1929, when the Great Depression was on the horizon, with France’s at 194 billion GK$[27]. This should not be surprising: Germany is basally an industrial nation compared to France, having thriving pharmaceutical, automotive, weapons, metallurgic, and electrical industries dating to the beginning of the 20th Century[28].

Perhaps the biggest economic blow to Germany postwar was the annexation and demilitarization of the Rhineland. Apart from being a major military resupply point, the Rhineland houses much coal and iron resources as well as several factories of Krupp Industries, a major weapons manufacturer[29]. The loss of the Rhineland would reduce Germany to 89% of its population, 92% of its territory, 85% of its railroad and river traffic, 88% of its coal mines, 67% of its prewar metallurgic production capability, and less than 20% of its prewar annual iron ore production output. Indeed, much of the Rhineland’s iron ore processing was reduced to around 20% of its prewar annual output when the area was demilitarized and jointly administered by the British and the French, but the other industries remained largely unaffected, most of them reduced to 90% of their prewar production output[30]. One can assume, therefore, that fundamentally, Germany’s economy was stronger than that of France’s, and was better off even without the Rhineland and Saar Valley.

Despite Germany’s economic setbacks, France’s already worse-off economy was hard-hit from the War. Germany’s 1870 annexation of the French-controlled Saar Basin cost the French an annual coal output of nearly 17 million tons, and crippled the French economy during the later stages of the war[31]. Moreover, much of France’s industrial infrastructure in the northeast, which produced about a quarter of the country’s productive capital and at least 50% of its industrially-manufactured goods (metals and textiles), was destroyed by the German army[32]. Also, at least 2.7 million Frenchmen and Frenchwomen were driven out of their homes by the German military, and only half of those employed in the ravaged areas returned to work at the end of the war. The ensuing refugee and employment crisis would ensure a further crimp on France’s resources. Around 4,000 km of railroads and 53,000 km of roads were also destroyed by the German army, thereby hindering transportation of goods and personnel, and subsequently the French economy[33]. French military losses also entailed a 15% labor loss in France’s private economic sector[34].

The annexation of the Saar Valley and the Rhineland did little to increase postwar industrial output or give France room to recuperate from her losses[35]. When the French did move in to claim the resources in the areas it annexed, however, they were not able to capitalize on them since the German factory workers there passively resisted their control[36]. Since the Treaty did not burden Germany with the maintenance of the forces administering the annexed Saar Valley and the demilitarized Rhineland, France alone would be responsible for the costly maintenance of occupation forces in these areas, increasing the burden on its comparatively weaker economy[37].

Politically, France’s actions compromised its position with respect to that of Germany. Postwar, France sought the help of its allies in guaranteeing its own security. However, this was done not out of “fear in the years to come… [of]… a German attack, but [rather of] systematic failure to execute the Treaty”[38]. Georges Clemenceau sought to persuade British Prime Minister Lloyd George to augment France’s occupation forces in the Rhineland with British troops. Lloyd George deemed it a logistical impossibility, and that he was

"equally opposed both to a permanent Army, and to the use of British troops outside English territory. Furthermore, occupation tends to create a nationalist irritation not only on the left bank of the Rhine but throughout all of Germany... nor do we agree as to the creation of an independent state on the left bank of the Rhine."[39]

Britain’s position seemed very justifiable: a foreign military presence on German land would embolden rightwing or militaristic political groups within Germany, and would prove disastrous in the long run[40]. However, the French remained adamant in maintaining occupation forces in the Rhineland. Andre Tardieu, Clemenceau’s lieutenant at the time, claimed that

"To ask us to give up occupation, is like asking England and the United States to sink their fleet of battleships. We refuse."[41]

To which Lloyd George replied that the occupation “amounts to making Germany pay for the cost and upkeep of the French army... [It is] ruinous because it will absorb to the detriment of the indemnity fund the best part of the German resources."[42] As far as the Treaty would allow, the allies were interested in occupying only annexed territories, and were also strict on not inflicting any outright “punitive damages” on Germany[43]. The French position was therefore one of control and political dismemberment of the German Republic, while the remaining allies mainly sought reparations from the defeated Central Power as well as its disarmament. France’s attitude toward this matter might have served to isolate its own position from the rest of the allies and weaken any commitment to the Treaty’s stipulations. The British, it seems, did not want to get themselves involved in any aggressive motion towards Germany.

Probably the most important programs that the French clashed with in this regard were Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points and the League of Nations, of which the French were trying to delay until their interests in Germany were met. Among Wilson’s Fourteen Points included allocation of German-controlled territory to a number of nations, including France and the future state of Poland[44]. The French were especially bold on the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, a chunk of land on the southern German-French border, to which they sought a dual purpose: first, as a sort of “buffer” in that its inhabitants would fight for France “should the Germans cross the Rhine”; and second, as a crucial fulfillment of vengeful French Foreign Policy since the 1870's[45]. However, Alsace-Lorraine wasn’t the only piece of land on the French agenda. The French leadership, more notably Clemenceau and Field Marshal Foch, wanted to break up German territory and create “more separate and independent republics”. Foch asserted on the right of these populations to their own self-determination, a facet backed by Wilson’s Fourteen Points and one they used to their own advantage[46]. However, the French plans were met with fierce resistance from the Allies for the same reasons aforementioned by Lloyd George. Consequently, the territories taken from Germany were mainly allotted to the new Polish state or to France in the case of Alsace-Lorraine. Therefore, France was left at a politically weaker position than what it was aiming for.

It should be no surprise that France’s hostility towards Germany following its submission to the Versailles Treaty only garnered Germany more sympathy from the Entente powers, mainly the U.S. and Britain[47]. As such, France remained isolated in its efforts to weaken Germany through any means it thought necessary, whether it was through the usage of its own military resources, or through the resources of other nations such as the British navy and the American military. In light of France’s concerns, the American President Wilson offered his nation’s backing to France should it be attacked, though this backing was subject to approval by the Executive Council of the League of Nations[48]. That backing did not materialize because the U.S. Senate voted not to ratify the Versailles Treaty nor join the League of Nations for that matter[49].

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Versailles itself seemed practically unfeasible in light of the economic, human, and military resources required to fulfill its conditions. The total cost of the War on Germany was around 48% of its prewar (1913) GDP high while its reparations dues exceeded that amount by 161%. Altogether, Germany’s debt and reparations amounted to 309% of its 1913 GDP high. Britain and France, whose debts amounted to 144% and 133% their 1913 GDP per capita respectively, could not allocate resources for maintenance of their forces in the Rhineland and Saar Valley for over the 12 to 15 year period mandated in the Treaty let alone indefinitely and thus would not have the capability to sustain or enforce the agreements. [50] Such faulty foresight would eventually lead to a loosening of the Treaty’s conditions and a reduction in Germany’s burden of debt and reparations on a per annum basis.[51] This downtime in enforcing the Treaty is shown well in a remark by Lloyd George in early 1919: “[the] Germans are demobilizing slowly. They have still more than fifty divisions.”[52] Furthermore, the lack of commitment to the League of Nations – a means to promote security of the Versailles conditions – underscored the inefficiency of the Treaty further still in the sense that it demoted commitment to obligations set by the Treaty and carried out by parties who have no staked interests in their assigned postings (such as the British in the Rhineland).[53] In effect, the Treaty of Versailles comes across as being too idealistic, or even vindictive, and one that completely ignores economic, social, political, and militaristic consequences.

To sum up, the Versailles Treaty weakened Germany’s military, but not its economy. Furthermore, the political ramifications of the Versailles Treaty proved to be detrimental to France’s position, and Germany was not as burdened or weakened enough as has been shown. Though this concludes the topic for now, further research involving more explicit economic and military analysis is required to fully assess the political, social, and economic implications of the losses and gains by nations following the war and following the implementation of the Treaty, and how they play in the issue of their national strengths.

Endnotes

[1] Andre Tardieu, “The Truth about the Treaty”, p. 157
[2] Tardieu, p. 132
[3] Paul Birdsall, “Versailles: Twenty Years After”, p. 19
[4] Birdsall, p. 116
[5] Birdsall, p. 298
[6] Gary Schaub, Jr., “Deterrence, Compellence, and Prospect Theory”, p. 389
[7] Schaub Jr., p. 390
[8] Brian Lai, “Effect of Different Types of Military Mobilization and their Outcomes”, p. 217
[9] Schaub Jr., p. 391
[10] Gerry Hendershot, “Population Size, Military Power, and Antinatal Policy”, p. 519
[11] Nicholas Kristof, “The Rise of China”, p.59
[12] Hendershot, p. 519
[13] Hendershot, p. 521
[14] David French, “The Meaning of Attrition”, p. 391
[15] Torsten Persson, “Do Political Institutions Shape Economic Policy?”, p. 883
[16] Tardieu, p. 132
[17] Tardieu, p. 142
[18] Tardieu, p. 133
[19] Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums, “Sanitaetsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer), im Weltkriege, 1914-1918”, p.10
[20] Tardieu, p.157
[21] Angus Maddison, “The World Economy: Historical Statistics”, p.36
[22] Tardieu, p.155
[23] Tardieu, p.133
[24] Birdsall, p.295
[25] Maddison, p.48
[26] Tardieu, p.290
[27] Maddison, p.50
[28] William Moul, “Power Parity and War between Powers”, p.475
[29] Amos Yoder, “The Ruhr Authority and the German Problem”, p.346
[30] Tardieu, p.165
[31] Birdsall, p.224
[32] Tardieu, p.157, 377
[33] Tardieu, p. 379
[34] Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, “The Economics of World War One”, p. 176
[35] Broadberry and Harrison, p.171
[36] Birdsall, p.300
[37] Birdsall, p.295
[38] Tardieu, p.197
[39] Tardieu, p.173
[40] Birdsall, p.302
[41] Tardieu, p.175
[42] Tardieu, p.197
[43] Birdsall, p.251
[44] Birdsall, p.28
[45] Tardieu, p.233
[46] Birdsall, p.32
[47] Birdsall, p.298
[48] Tardieu, p.205
[49] Birdsall, p.297
[50] Broadberry and Harrison, p.69
[51] Birdsall, p.301
[52] Tardieu, p.127
[53] Birdsall, p.24

Bibliography

Birdsall, Paul. Versailles: Twenty Years After. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock. 1941.

Broadberry, Stephen., Harrison, Mark. The Economics of World War One. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2005.

French, David. “The Meaning of Attrition, 1914-1916.” The English Historical Review. Vol. 103, no. 407. 1988, pp. 385-405.

Heeres-Sanitaetsinspektion im Reichskriegsministeriums. “Sanitaetsbericht über das deutsche Heer, (deutsches Feld- und Besatzungsheer) im Weltkriege 1914-1918.” German War Ministry. Vol. 3, no. 1. PP. 1943 pp. 7-14.

Hendershot, Gerry. “Population Size, Military Power, and Antinatal Policy.” Demography. Vol. 10, no. 4. 1973, pp. 517-524.

Kristof, Nicholas. “The Rise of China”. Foreign Affairs. Vol. 72, no. 5. 1993, pp. 59-74.

Lai, Brian. “The Effect of Different Types of Military Mobilization on the Outcome of International Crises.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 48, no. 2. 2004, pp.211-229.

Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: Historical Statistics. Paris: OECD Development Centre Studies. 2003.

Moul, William. “Power Parity, Preponderence, and War between Great Powers.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 47, no. 4. 2003, pp. 468-489.

Persson, Torsten. “Do Political Institutions Shape Economic Policy?” Econometrica. Vol. 70, no. 3. 2002, pp. 883-905.

Schaub, Jr., Gary. “Deterrence, Compellence, and Prospect Theory.” Political Psychology. Vol. 25, no. 3. 2004, pp. 389-411.

Tardieu, Andre. The Truth about the Treaty. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1921.

Yoder, Amos. “The Ruhr Authority and the German Problem.” Vol. 17, no. 3. 1955, pp.345-368.

Salaam, from Saracen

How to Make and Sing Karaoke

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:02:40 PDT

Download and install Audacity 1.2.6 from its Sourceforge mirror. If you wish to export the karaoke tracks as .mp3 files, download the LAME encoder from the same download mirror. Run Audacity 1.2.6, choose “File”, click “Open”, and select the desired audio file from your music library. When the file is finished loading, click on the audio track’s option menu on the left of the wave pattern and choose “Split Stereo Track”. Ensure that the track is not playing in Audacity or any other program. Select the right stereo channel, usually the one on the bottom, and invert the track by using the “Invert” effect from the “Effects” menu. Change the track types of both right and left channels to “mono”. Play the track. If the track is satisfactory, go to the “File” menu and export the track as .mp3 or .wav. Choose a name different from the original file. Should this guide fail you, search for cheesy instructional videos on YouTube or find a $59.99 karaoke maker program from the web. Upload the file to a flash drive or burn the track on a CD using Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, iTunes, Nero, or any other program.

At the appropriate musical, talent show, or karaoke night, place the CD or flash drive into the player and select the track. To minimize embarrassment, make sure that the microphone is plugged in and working, that your throat is clear, that your breathing is normal, that spinach is not between your teeth, that your clothing is fine, and that your body odor is minimal. Don’t hold your breath. Relax. Smile. Breathe in. Breathe out. Stand straight, legs at shoulder’s breadth, abdomen erect, back upright, and pants or skirt securely fastened around waist. Speak into the microphone. Project your voice forward. Contemplate the lyrics as you sing. Rock on.

Salaam, from Saracen

Against "World Music"

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:21:46 PDT

Music is classified into many genres (rock, pop, rap, etc.) and subgenres (classic rock, heavy metal, hiphop, soul, etc.). It has worked mainly to classify different tastes and musical movements. Recently, however, the upper echelon of the Western music industries have come up with a fancy term for anything else that doesn't fall into these categories: "world music," an umbrella phrase that shrouds Arabic, Latin, Hindi, Greek, Carribean, and other genres (sorry if I left anyone out, but I just included these for the sake of example).

The phrase "World music" is the biggest crock of BS I have ever come across as one who has a taste in a variety of musical genres (albeit admittedly over a limited scope of artists). It is a demeaning and racist term used to shove aside any and all interest in a wider spectrum of musical tastes, regardless of whether or not they conform to some standard of musical creation, such as classical or baroque music, or some form of diction like in rap... and are they supposed to?

There are genres and subgenres in "world" music as well. For example, you have Salsa, Merengue, Mambo, and others in Latin music, as well as Khaliji, Lebanese, Egyptian, and others in Arabic music. They are all different in their own respects, and to put them all in the same genre defies any sort of commonsense, and doesn't allow us to appreciate each one within its own sphere of creation and art. A true musical conoisseur, in my opinion, would not consider any such classification one that would allow eclecticism in taste. Neither does the term itself allow for any such innovation or genre from outside the Western music scene to pop into the world music market (i.e. the one that everyone can buy off the internet or in music stores worldwide).

I think Scottish-American musician David Byrne said it best in his October 3, 1999, New York Times article titled "I Hate World Music". He states, in his article, that "World Music"

is a catchall that commonly refers to non-Western music of any and all sorts, popular music, traditional music and even classical music. It’s a marketing as well as a pseudomusical term — and a name for a bin in the record store signifying stuff that doesn’t belong anywhere else in the store. What’s in that bin ranges from the most blatantly commercial music produced by a country, like Hindi film music (the singer Asha Bhosle being the best well known example), to the ultra-sophisticated, super-cosmopolitan art-pop of Brazil (Caetano Veloso, Tom Zé, Carlinhos Brown); from the somewhat bizarre and surreal concept of a former Bulgarian state-run folkloric choir being arranged by classically trained, Soviet-era composers (Le Mystére des Voix Bulgares) to Norteño songs from Texas and northern Mexico glorifying the exploits of drug dealers (Los Tigres del Norte). Albums by Selena, Ricky Martin and Los Del Rio (the Macarena kings), artists who sell millions of records in the United States alone, are racked next to field recordings of Thai hill tribes. Equating apples and oranges indeed. So, from a purely democratic standpoint, one in which all music is equal, regardless of sales and slickness of production, this is a musical utopia.

Sounds good and all, but his strongest point, and I think the focal point of his piece, is that

is a way of dismissing artists or their music as irrelevant to one’s own life. It’s a way of relegating this “thing” into the realm of something exotic and therefore cute, weird but safe, because exotica is beautiful but irrelevant; they are, by definition, not like us. Maybe that’s why I hate the term. It groups everything and anything that isn’t “us” into “them.” This grouping is a convenient way of not seeing a band or artist as a creative individual, albeit from a culture somewhat different from that seen on American television. It’s a label for anything at all that is not sung in English or anything that doesn’t fit into the Anglo-Western pop universe this year. (So Ricky Martin is allowed out of the world music ghetto — for a while, anyway. Next year, who knows? If he makes a plena record, he might have to go back to the salsa bins and the Latin mom and pop record stores.) It’s a none too subtle way of reasserting the hegemony of Western pop culture. It ghettoizes most of the world’s music.[...]

There is some terrific music being made all over the world. In fact, there is more music, in sheer quantity, currently defined as world music, than any other kind. Not just kinds of music, but volume of recordings as well. When we talk about world music we find ourselves talking about 99 percent of the music on this planet. It would be strange to imagine, as many multinational corporations seem to, that Western pop holds the copyright on musical creativity.

In considering these points, one has to realize that indeed the categorization of much of this world's music into this particular dustbin is in effect severely limiting the musical capacities the human race as a whole can offer on the fast-developing music market. To limit the music market to one particular genre or a set of particular genres emanating from a single culture or a small handful of cultures would effectively be discoloring and severely limiting of the creative capabilities of not just this generation of artists, but also the next.

Which brings us to the more spiritual aspects of rejecting music from around the world and other genres. David Byrne mentions that

I would love to believe that once you grow to love some aspect of a culture — its music, for instance — you can never again think of the people of that culture as less than yourself. I would like to believe that if I am deeply moved by a song originating from some place other than my own hometown, then I have in some way shared an experience with the people of that culture. I have been pleasantly contaminated. I can identify in some small way with it and its people. Not that I will ever experience music exactly the same way as those who make it. I am not Hank Williams, or even Hank Jr., but I can still love his music and be moved by it. Doesn’t mean I have to live like him. Or take as many drugs as he did, or, for that matter, as much as the great flamenco singer Cameron de la Isla did.

That’s what art does; it communicates the vibe, the feeling, the attitude toward our lives, in a way that is personal and universal at the same time. And we don’t have to go through all the personal torment that the artist went through to get it. I would like to think that if you love a piece of music, how can you help but love, or at least respect, the producers of it? On the other hand, I know plenty of racists who love “soul” music, rap and rhthym-and-blues, so dream on, Dave.

And I agree wholeheartedly. I think music is a universal language that can bring us together and convey to us differring message, regardless of whether we understand the lyrics or not. This only adds more ammunition against the fallacious term "world music"... unless you include ALL music as world music, no exceptions.

After a discussion with one of my friends on the issue, however, I have also come to realize why the term was brought about: it is a "relative" term. If I was in Central or South America, I would be going to stores buying off not just Latin music, but Merengue, Salsa, Mambo, Reggaeton, Latin pop, etc. "World" music would be everything else, including Western music. One can only argue that given the Western hegemony over much of the musical and entertainment industries, the term "world" music is more used to define every other genre that doesn't make much sale on the market. Reggae and Latin were lucky, apparently. One will not find tribal music of another country or another place to give that vibe. Even worse is that some musicians from around the world are trying to conform to those standards by "sanitizing" their music for Western consumption, one that detracts from the original musical atmosphere.

Regardless, I will take Mr. Byrne's stance and never agree to the term "world" music. And you shouldn't, either. I can understand that people grow in different cultures and places and that they grow accustomed - perhaps too accustomed - to the genres of music present in the local market, but given the power music can have over us in understanding each other and "other" cultures, I don't think we should just shove aside African tribal music and Japanese pop music into the same melting pot now.

But what do you think? Do you think "world" music is an appropriate term? Or do you think that it's okay to shove aside any music that doesn't conform to your illusion of what you consider to be "true music"?

Salaam, from Saracen

"A Shoe on Your Head": the Romantic Story of Bush and the 2 Size 10's

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:00:25 PDT

I know this story is long overdue, and that I haven't been writing in a while. There are more things to life than sitting in front of a computer and rambling about whatever comes your way in the news or your daily experiences. But anyways, to the issue at hand. Last year on December the 14th, Muntazer al-Zaidi, an Iraqi reporter from the Iraqi-owned and Egyptian-based Al-Baghdadia TV (البغدادية), threw 2 "size 10" shoes (according to Dubya) at the then pResident of the U.S., George W. Bush (1). All Dubya could do was smile at Zaidi, who was then assailed by Iraqi security forces and taken into custody. Of course, that was all said and done at the time, and usually at other events involving political figures being assailed one way or another by angry protestors, the news of such things tends to die off or remain in memory as an event alone.

Of course, that's for most events of this theme.

Sadly, Western - and unfortunately this time around, Arab - media outlets have a tendency to over-romanticize these "bizarre" events as expressions of cultural norms or something that pertains solely to culture, and de-valuing the role of the individual at that point (2, 3, 4). The biggest example is how some media pundits tend to focus more on supposed Islamic misinterpretations as being behind some major terrorist attack as opposed to examining the individual motives behind the attackers and their socio-psychological histories (5).

In this case, the ever-so-present insult of raising the shoe in Arab culture became the headlines on December 15, NOT the notion of an angry journalist throwing a pair at the man who was solely responsible for leaving Iraq in the third-world developmental nightmare that it is in right now. I would have expected to at least see analysts talking about the motives of this man and questioning as to what brought him to do such a thing, not show April 2003 footage of Iraqi mobs slapping the head of a fallen Saddam statue (believe me, I'd love to join them myself, but that's besides the point; 6). This footage has been added to the repository of images and fantasies that is Orientalism, and indeed we see the hand of Orientalism at play here.

What's surprising is the reaction of the Arab world. Protests in Iraq supporting Zaidi involved banners with shoes on top of them (7). They also appeared in protests against the Gaza bombardment (which I will discuss soon) in places as far as Istanbul and London (8). I once saw a Kuwaiti politician on some obscure Arabic channel raise his shoe at Abbas in protest of the latter's unwillingness to help the Gazan populace in this time of need. Even the brand of shoes that were thrown at Bush had their sales skyrocket following the incident.

Still, though, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the shoe will become the new symbol for Pan-Arab nationalism and resistance.

Salaam, from Saracen

Book Review: The Socialist Tradition from Moses to Lenin, by Sir Alexander Gray

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:06:29 PST

Many scholars have attempted to draw hypotheses regarding socio-political attitudes and, in the loosest meaning possible, ideologies from usually superficially unrelated discourses. Such analytical work, however, tends to provide a framework for more complicated and specific theses vis-à-vis current social phenomena. Oftentimes, this has worked with marginal success, such as Edward Said’s widely-read Foucauldian eponymous treatise on Orientalism (Vintage Books, New York, 1979), a plethoric “vault” of imagined constructions about the “Orient”, or the lands of the East. This tour de force has been used numerously in critiques of “Orientalist” discursive pieces. In other cases, it has resulted, in my opinion at least, in utter failure, such as Ibn Warraq’s – a bigot who has a serious ax to grind – The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus Books, New York, 2008), a book that errantly alleges that the Muslim psyche is geared towards violence against non-Muslims, and “supports” his thesis by drawing out historical events without content and context in mind. Luckily, Sir Alexander Gray’s The Socialist Tradition from Moses to Lenin (1946) does not fall into the latter category. However, it doesn’t fit into the former without difficulty, and I will attempt to explain why I think so, among other things, in this review.

Sir Alexander Gray (1882-1968) was a well-read, trilingual (English, French, German) – and therefore seemingly multi-talented – Scottish scholar, poet, and economist who studied at universities in Edinburgh, Paris, and Göttingen. In 1942, he was elected to a fellowship at the Royal Society of Edinburgh, a reputed center for scientific and literary academia1. Among his most famous works, published during his stint at Aberdeen University as an economics professor, is The Development of Economic Doctrine (1931), which many scholars, to this day, dubbed his magnum opus. Indeed, he recommended that this book be complemented to the book that is the subject of this review. He is also a translator of a number of German and Danish poems and ballads into both English and Scottish Gaelic.
Sir Alexander’s credentials are doubtlessly impressive for a man of his time. I wasn’t personally surprised that a man of such caliber would take a shot at providing a survey of seemingly similar ideas of prominent thinkers he calls “socialists”, which, according to him, are named on virtue of their opposition to (absolute) individualism and laissez faire,

the underlying assumption… that each individual is competent to look out for himself, … is the best judge of what is good for him…, and that the best service he can render to his day and generation is to look after his own affairs (p 487).

It should therefore be of no surprise that he takes this a step further and attempts to tie them to the historical phenomenon that is Socialism.

This leads me to the topic of the review. The Socialist Tradition is a secondary work that surveys, with moderate detail (enough to summarize and explain the main ideas), a wealth of primary “socialist” sources from the Bible to the Communist Manifesto. Each chapter of the book is dedicated to a particular thinker or group of thinkers of a certain era or trend: Gray treats Robert Owen and the Scientific Socialists (Marx, Engels, Lasalle, and Rodbertus) in separate sections. The chapters are ordered chronologically, and deal with a total of 40 thinkers (e.g. Proudhon) and/or groups of thinkers (e.g. the Saint-Simonians). The chapters follow a somewhat uniform template, beginning with biographical and contextual background of its concerned intellectual, followed by a systematic breakdown of their main arguments (with appropriate citations), how they were shaped by intellectuals before them (e.g. how Thomas More was influenced by Christian theology; p. 64), and how they shape those after them (e.g. William Godwin’s influence on Robert Owen; p. 199).

Regardless of the encyclopedic appeal of this book, Sir Alexander’s scholarly work was an attempt to implicitly convince the reader of extant common trends in socialist thought, which I assume he eponymously called the “Socialist Tradition”. A long week and 534 arduous pages later, his book does exactly that, plus a complimentary bag of chips, preferably English ones with a side of cod fillet. The stated purpose of the book itself is to assess the contributions of such thinkers to the “Socialist Tradition”, itself a deep social trend (p. 1). He first engages the reader with a compelling précis of ancient Greek (p. 11-27) and Biblical texts, drawing out the Ten Commandments and divinely-ordained injunctions towards societal betterment, opposition to excessiveness and exploitation, and goodwill to one’s fellow man and woman (p. 32-42). Then, he shows us how these ideals (emphasis) influenced Utopian Socialist thought (p. 61), and how they water down and succumb to more secular, political, and practical interpretations of Socialism (Marx, Bakunin, Bernstein et al.; p. 297, 352-362; 401-408). He caps this book by citing a major example of socialist interpretation in political action: that of the Lenin (p. 459). All in all, he raises socialist concerns for justice, equity, and equality (yes, I too thought that equity and equality were the same at one point; p.69, 159 492), and concerns against class difference (p. 220), excessiveness (p. 164), usury (or capitalism in more modern cases; p. 337), tyranny (p. 140), and individualism (p. 195). Given the manifestation of these trends throughout history, we are led to believe that these concerns are ahistoric in nature, and therefore tied to the essence of human existence itself, if not human nature (which, I believe, is an elusive concept despite myriads of scholarly attempts to resolve it). Socialism itself, it appears, is historic: it evolves and changes as time progresses, although a certain degree of consistency in the underlying impetus, mentioned above, is achieved.

I’ll have to admit that when I first picked up the book from the university library, I thought it was going to be another rightwing smear campaign against leftists. Of course, that was until I actually read the preface. Gray states that previous dissertations on socialist thought, such as Kirkup’s History of Socialism (1892), have been fraught with bias, or prejudice in some cases, in some form or other (p. v). While he appeals to objectivity, he acknowledges his bias quite comically, stating that he does “not like the company of Marx”, and that he would be amused amicably if Fourier were to “give his marvelous impersonation of a fox or a robin or a giraffe” should the hypothetical hotel bar that he would meet him in were not full (p. vi). Informality aside, he does in fact offer a more or less unbiased perspective. The biggest surprise I encountered was his slightly empathic portrayal of statements made by the well-known radical French socialist Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865). One such statement that Proudhon coined is the famous anarchist slogan, “Property is theft” (p. 236). Gray goes on, however, citing the Frenchman’s work, that he actually implied the “sum total of the abuses that may spring from property” (p. 239). He also states in the epilogue of the book ( “postface” in early 20th Century Scottish English) that despite conventional definitions of individualism and Socialism, they

are not so much opposed as complementary principles… We are each of us an individual in society. We express ourselves as individuals through society and (whether we like it or not) we depend on society (p.488).

I can only say that I could not agree more with such a talented writer.

It’s his remarkable array of talents, however, from which stem the shortcomings of this book. While his perspective may be more on the fair side, the pages are convoluted with complex syntax (not that the language of this review is any simpler). Despite the informal preface, the remaining 534 pages of the book are clearly intended more for scholarly examination than a reading hour on a lounge chair. Make no mistake: this is not “Socialism for Dummies”. One could definitely get the gist of what he’s talking about in the book overall, but Gray has his moments of academic epiphany: he assumes that the reader is, for starters, well-versed in German (and German poetry), French, English, and, in some parts, Latin. Too often has he thrown in untranslated quotes by French and German intellectuals, and, at one point, a German quote by an English intellectual (p. 63). I had to wait till I got home and went online to translate “la dialectique m’envirait” (whose meaning is still unknown to me; p. 233), a line I read in the library 5 hours ago. Who in the world of academia, today and in the past, would subliminally compel you to use not one but two dictionaries alongside a book intended for you, a speaker of the language the book was written in to begin with?

Other concerns cast doubt on his thesis. After all, scholarly work is not perfect. One might wonder, for example, if 40 thinkers and/or groups of them is too small a number to analyze an encompassing phenomenon such as Socialism. Rest assured, Gray acknowledges this, and claims implicitly that were it not for his other endeavors, he would have devoted a lifetime to its study, but even that would not be enough (p. v-vi). Large temporal gaps exist between thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and St. Thomas More (1478-1535; p.54, 61), although their common interest in Christian theology may negate this factor. Moreover, much to my dismay, most if not all characters mentioned are European. Consider historically that the Renaissance was affected greatly by the works of Islamic and Jewish scholars2, and that much of their contributions had collectivist and Socialist undertones3. Regardless, I’m tempted to forgive Gray for his omission of non-European contributions: he persuades the reader that Socialism itself became more ideologically manifest amongst European intellectuals who devoted their lives and energies towards developing a purely Socialist ideology in one form or another. This is not to say that Socialism is a strictly European phenomenon, that it could only stem from the Europeans, or that it is a “good” or “bad” ideology.

My last, and probably most important, concerns are his lack of extensive citations per page, use of an equal amount of secondary sources, and the mass of text he uses to interpret statements found in the works he researched. He has apparently failed to address this concern given that the copy of the book that was available to me was the second edition. Some pages contain a handful of citations (9 on p. 248), and others contain little to no citation (p. 307, well into the chapter on Scientific Socialism). Nevertheless, the 50-page chapter on Scientific Socialism contains at least 100 references, but I felt that they were spread too far and too thin amongst most of the text, which consisted of his personal interpretation of the texts more than anything else (p. 307). Also, while much attention is given to primary sources, he does in part pay lip service to commentaries on them, such as that of Lenin (p. 304) and Loria (p. 319) on Marx’s teachings. My guess is that he is attempting to use these sources for clarification purposes at best, given the overall “fairness” of his outlook on Socialism.

The Socialist Tradition from Moses to Lenin – in spite of its archaic syntax, pretentious non-English quotations, and hard cover – was nonetheless a fruitful and enlightening read. If you can sift through it and bear through mind-boggling minutes, if not hours, of reading, then this book is definitely for you. If, however, that lounge chair is looking comfortable, then you’d better get out that “Socialism for Dummies” copy that’s been collecting dust on your bookshelf.

Endnotes

1. Literary Encyclopedia, accessed on 11-18-08
2. The Wisdom Fund, accessed on 11-18-08.
3. AAIIL, accessed on 11-18-08.

Bibliography

Sir Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition from Moses to Lenin, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., New York, 1946: xx, 514, index

Salaam, from Saracen

My Thoughts on the U.S. Election (2008)

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:27:06 PST

I remember seeing a particular advertisement on the BBC for the 2008 Presidential Election in the United States, claiming that it would be a vote that would affect issues the world over, "from the war in Iraq to peace in the Middle East". That's the usual caffeinated hyperbole you get from people who nag at you and knock at your door, telling you to "go out and vote!" As if voting is going to change anything? Elections don't build nations (and that's the topic of an upcoming post, I promise you that), but election results are nonetheless important.

To be frank, I was quite surprised that Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency. I bet my brother and a couple of friends that McCain would win, not that I supported that old geyser in the first place. I should have considered that he was committing political suicide by giving his VP candidacy ticket to Sarah Palin, an inexperienced Alaskan governor, all-around "hockey mom", and redneck who just loved to rail constantly against Obama without backing her own stances.

Nor was I particularly interested in Obama, either: politics being politics, I'm not holding anything against for or against him until he actually does something. Regardless, the lesser of two evils will be in the White House starting January 20, 2009. Yes, I know his speech following his victory was moving and tear-jerking to his groupies, but I don't take words. I consider actions. The previous U.S. presidents have railed on the same things over and over again prior to their terms in office.

One of them ended with a stain on the blouse of an intern.

My point is that while I admire Obama's charisma, I will still keep him in the limelight until he actually turns country policy around. The same goes for the Middle East: his policies sound more hawkish than Hillary Clinton (who herself is a disaster of epic proportions). At best, Obama may actually bring stability to the Middle East, but I don't see him as some sort of messianic figure that will help the Middle Eastern people back up on their feet: it would be against American interests to tip over tyrannical governments that serve their interests.

He might not be in any shape or form able to tip the scales of the Israeli-Palestine conflict towards the middle and/or find an equitable solution to both sides. Then again, American intervention is what's making it worse in the first place.

The campaign itself was fraught with the usual immaturity of political bipartisanship and bantering. I wonder if it's going to be any different in the next 4 or 8 years should the Americans re-elect Obama in 2012. Either way, I'm not holding my breath.

Salaam, from Saracen

Intellectual Video-Gaming: On Deus Ex, Philosophy, and Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:38:10 PDT

One of the most widely hailed "best game" of all time is the action/adventure/stealth/strategy/RPG known as Deus Ex (it's designer, Warren Spector - who produced the hardcore sci-fi/horror System Shock and the legendary steampunk Thief series - did not categorize Deus Ex into a specific genre, coming to show that it has reached a level of appreciation beyond any mere classification), a VG that I had the pleasure of going through once. The sequel itself, Deus Ex: Invisible War, was quite good as well (and it also came with a quality soundtrack). They both had all the elements of a great game: open-ended situations, pivotal dilemmas to decide on, well-rounded characters that you actually could develop (un)sympathetic emotions towards, occasional side-stories and numerous humor-reliefs, aesthetic sci-fi visuals (so I admit I am a big fan of the sci-fi genre), and - most importantly - a solid storyline that anyone can relate to... well, almost anyone.

But what struck me most in Deus Ex and its sequel, DX: Invisible War, is the depth of its storyline in relation to real-world issues such as politics, the ailments of mankinds, a government by the people, the question of the self, and the future of mankind. While a lot of the elements in the story seem overly fictional and based admittedly on popular conspiracy theories, the questions this game tries to answer are practical and realistic. The hints to such answers appear everywhere in the game, from moments of subtle dialogue to turning points and decision-making scenarios. While a myriad of such hints may be present in the less popular DX:IW sequel (1), I choose to focus this post on the script of the first Deus Ex, namely b/c the endings of the game itself are more consistent with each other in pertaining to a particular question that has already been addressed by DEUSEXGAMING.com, a fansite of the game itself.

Before I get to that, let's enjoy a few excerpts of my favorite dialogue from the game itself (2). Note that I tend to agree with most if not all of the lines presented here. First, a few jarring one-liners from the game's protagonist and player character, JC (Jesus Christ?) Denton, a nano-technologically-modified human being.

"Amazing when you think about it. All the hours I dreamed of working here. All the heroic fantasies when really this place is just a cinderblock bunker with a carpet." (said after his stint with UNATCO ended with him discovering that it is a front for a shadowy organization called MJ-12)

"Some gang-banger, maybe you should think about going back to school."

"Bravery is not a function of firepower."

"Human beings may not be perfect, but a computer program with language synthesis is hardly the answer to the world's problems." (speaking to HELIOS in AREA 51)

"Every war is the result of a difference of opinion. Maybe the biggest questions can only be answered by the greatest of conflicts."

"What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"

Next, Paul Denton, who is JC Denton's older brother and the prototype for the new nanotechnologically-modified UNATCO agent, but defects earlier in the story after discovering the treachery of UNATCO and MJ-12:

"Somehow the notion of unalienable liberty got lost. It's really become a question of what liberties will the state assign to individuals or rather, what liberties we will have the strength to cling to."

Other modified agents include the likes of Gunther Hermann, who is mechanically-augmented and for some reason whose grammar is only slightly better than that of Dubya Jr.:

"I see you, a thief on the roof. My new satellite link has both infrared and the x-ray spectrum. I see your heart beating. I see you are afraid." (said in the French Templar Cathedral when JC is sneaking in from the top to infiltrate the MJ-12 communications network)

"You are a small, prowling mouse... and dumb like a mouse! You keep coming, like you forget about Agent Navarre. I remember Agent Navarre. I remember for everyone." (definitely Dubya material)

"No, I wanted orange! It gave me lemon-lime" (as part of the conspiracy jist in the game, Gunther alleges that the janitors played around with the soda machine to dispense him the wrong drink; you find out about the conspiracy near the end of the game in DX:IW)

Sam Carter is a retired general who serves as UNATCO's armaments specialist:

"Some say concentrated power leads to abuse, but I believe that if an institution has a solid foundation it can survive the narrow aspirations of the people it employs." (I doubt that, though, b/c an institution is as good as the people it employs, and if those people are willing to uphold the principles of the institution)

"Being a soldier isn't just following orders, it's following those orders in the service of a higher cause. When that cause is betrayed, we're not soldiers anymore, just pieces on a chess board dying for the wrong reason."

In JC's trip to Paris, he meets Chad Dumier, the leader of an underground movement known as Silhouette, which have been aided by several Illuminati such as Morgan Everett and Nicolette Duclare. Ironically, in the sequel DX:IW, Dumier turns out to be an Illuminatus himself and uses his power to blame much of his organization's shortcomings on JC Denton. What he says in the game, though, is rather intriguing:

"When government surveillance and intimidation is called "freedom from terrorism" or "liberation from crime", freedom and liberty have become words without meanings."

"Culture by definition a shared territory of meaning, inspires conflicts far more destructive than any other dispute over territory on the Earth's surface."

Morpheus, an AI construct reputed for being the game's "most poignant element", says at one point that

"The human being created civilization not because of willingness but of a need to be assimilated into higher orders of structure and meaning."

Let's skip the one-liners and go for excerpts of dialogue. This one is between JC Denton and a bartender named Isaac in the "Lucky Money Club" in Hong Kong's Wan Chai district. The district itself exists, but I doubt that the club - with a phony name like that - does, though:

JC Denton: "You said 'outside influences.' What does China fear?"
Isaac: "China is the last sovereign country in the world. Authoritarian but willing - unlike U.N.-governed countries - to give its people the freedom to do what they want.
JC Denton: "As long as they don’t break the law."
Isaac: "Listen to me. This is real freedom, freedom to own property, make a profit, make your life. The West, so afraid of strong government, now has no government. Only financial power."
JC Denton: "Our governments have limited power by design."
Isaac: "Rhetoric--and you believe it! Don’t you know where those slogans come from?"
JC Denton: "I give up."
Isaac: "Well-paid researchers - how do you say it? - 'think tanks,' funded by big businesses. What is that? A 'think tank'?"
JC Denton: "Hardly as sinister as a dictator, like China’s Premier."
Isaac: "It’s privately-funded propaganda. The Trilateral Commission in the United States for instance."
JC Denton: "The separation of powers acknowledges the petty ambitions of individuals; that’s its strength."
Isaac: "A system organized around the weakest qualities of individuals will produce these same qualities in its leaders."
JC Denton: "Perhaps certain qualities are an inseparable part of human nature.
Isaac: "The mark of the educated man is the suppression of these qualities in favor of better ones. The same is true of civilization."

Similar sentiments are echoed in this dialogue between JC Denton and Morpheus, except in relation to the value of religion in terms of politics in the past and the present:

Morpheus: "Human beings feel pleasure when they are watched. I have recorded their smiles as I tell them who they are."
JC Denton: "Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance."
Morpheus: "The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms."
JC Denton: "Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence. Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence."
Morpheus: "God and the gods were apparitions of observation, judgment and punishment. Other sentiments towards them were secondary."
JC Denton: "No one will ever worship a software entity peering at them through a camera."
Morpheus: "The human organism always worships. First, it was the gods, then it was fame (the observation and judgment of others), next it will be self-aware systems you have built to realize truly omnipresent observation and judgment."
JC Denton: "You underestimate humankind's love of freedom."
Morpheus: "The individual desires judgment. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization."

Next comes a rather crude exchange between JC Denton and a rival, Walton Simons, who himself is also nano-augmented:

Walton Simons: "You take another step forward and here I am again, like your own reflection in a hall of mirrors."
JC Denton: "That makes me one ugly son of a bitch. How'd my face get all marked up with bioelectrics?"

And finally... for a few giggles...

JC Denton: "How are the drinks here?"
Renault: "Great if you like rat piss."
JC Denton: "Never tried it."

There's more in the game, but this is just to give you an impression of the game's dialogue itself. And that's just scratching the surface, to be honest.

Anyways, let's move on to the more important stuff. Deus Ex is not your typical run-of-the-mill Orwellian nightmare come to life in 32-bit color and Unreal Engine game graphics. Many of the issues dealt with in Deus Ex 1 are more close to home, and are exhibited in the competing political philosophies that have sprung out in the past 3 centuries. At the forefront is the issue of democracy, a government of/for/by the people, vs. authoritarianism, allotting power to a select few. The abovementioned quotes are rather telling. Human nature, it seems, is driven by ambition and greed, all resulting from a survivalist psyche that we're ingrained with. Education and civilization, in as Freudian a manner as possible, seem to suppress these traits "in favor of better ones": humanistic ideals and striving for the "general will" or the common good of all peoples in a society. Qualities such as these are what lead to the establishment of civilization in the first place. Depending on the society and its people, a government of a particular type will be established. Eventually, shifts in power will allow for ambitious individuals to supercede authority and impose their will on the average Joe. This statement is most telling in the ending where JC Denton fuses with the Helios AI, a program incapable of ambition and greed. According to a particular writer at DeusExGaming.com (why do you remain anonymous?),

Bob Page’s plan was to merge with Helios and use the AI’s direct access to global communications networks to rule the entire world on his own. Helios has also decided that the world needs a human/AI absolute dictator, but he has determined that Page is unworthy to complete the merge. He has chosen you instead. Helios’s ability to control almost all automated systems in the world and his lack of human ambition, combined with your understanding of human needs and desires, creates a perfect leader for the world.

The ultimate message of Deus Ex is that “government by the people” is impossible. The final irony of the game is that you, after working so hard to return freedom to a world of shadow governments, are forced to determine the fate of the world alone. Whatever choice you make, you must choose whether to throw the world into a new dark age, allow the Illuminati to rule in the shadows, or rule the world alone as a computerized Platonic philosopher king.

The game uses a dramatic story of conspiracies to make a statement that can be verified by real-world history. Strong leaders like Pericles were very influential in Athens even though it was the world’s first direct democracy. The Roman Republic was designed to ensure the aristocracy’s power over the lower classes. Even in the United States, the modern world’s bastion of freedom and equality, politicians are often more interested in serving giant corporations than in representing the people. There is always somebody will to do anything to for power, whether that somebody is just a greedy politician or the leader of a vast conspiracy of world domination.(3)

The central dictum of Deus Ex is that human nature, being inescapable, will cloud the judgements of any one ruler, and that a perfect democracy is impossible to attain. History itself attests to this particular notion: even those that which we call "democracies" have been led by individuals who frequently abuse their power in some form or other.

But what about no government at all? Consider what the Morpheus AI said to JC: that the human being will always worship and desire judgement. Assuming that to be the case, governments will eventually be re-established even after their demise. Another ending in Deus Ex involves destroying all communications, leading to massive collapse of businesses and beaureaucracies that rely on them to maintain power relations. According to the same author,

All forms of communication-phone, television, radio, internet, postal, etc.-are computer-based. Because all computer networks have been centralized in Area 51, all long distance communications in the world are shut down indefinitely when Area 51 is destroyed. The bloated bureaucracies and corporations that rely on communication to sustain their stranglehold on the world topple soon after loss of communication. Society as a whole soon collapses, and the once great nations of the world split into small communities of survivors. Humanity will enter a new age similar to the centuries immediately after the fall of the Roman Empire. The almost complete collapse of modern civilization will likely result in a significant decrease in population and the adoption of a subsistence lifestyle by most of the survivors. While areas of the world whose people are used to dictators and despots will probably continue under similar governments after the initial anarchy of the collapse, other areas will go through much more significant changes.

Many areas will probably revert to feudalism as strong leaders rise out of the chaos to seize the wealth and resources left behind by the old society and conquer whatever land they can protect against other leaders. They will take control of those people who are too poor and weak to become leaders. The middle class will disappear, and the aristocratic and serf classes will reestablish themselves in their ancient positions of master and slave.

Not all areas will necessarily revert to a feudalistic mentality. Most people in the Roman world didn't have the benefit of an American-style democracy. Even the Roman republic, while it lasted, was nothing like the modern concept of representative democracy. Voting in ancient Rome was heavily stacked in favor of the aristocrats, and the aristocracy thwarted the few political reformers who attempted to give political power to the plebian class. It's possible that people who have been exposed to modern democracy will choose to form small democratic states instead of feudalistic kingdoms. Whether they become Athenian direct democracies or Roman republics, these citizen-run states will be base off which civilization is eventually reformed.

The western world will go through an accelerated version of the development of modern civilization. Humanity already has the benefit of knowing how the middle ages turned out, and it won't be long before democracy spreads again. Global communications will be a reality in a generation or two at the most. After all, people already have the knowledge and resources to set up long distance communication networks, and they only need ambitious people to step forward and organize them to the job done. Because most people were never really aware of your reasons for destroying the monolithic governments, nobody will prevent them from rebuilding. Within a few hundred years, civilization will progress from the dark ages to its modern form just before its collapse. You will have set human societal development back several hundred years for nothing.(4)

Given that human nature will supposedly never change, unless people realize that such blind technological advancement and ambitious capitalist pursuits may cloud or stagnate social progress in terms of civilization, all Denton would have done is regressed time for nothing, as it will all repeat itself later on. This is due to the capacity of human beings being able to recognize their own state of evolution and progress outside such natural bounds. Now, if only they knew how to work for the betterment of this world if not just for themselves...

To me, Deus Ex is a reminder of the force that is human ambition, a force that dominates the economical and social spheres of this global community, and its potential dangers. It also serves to highlight chilling prospects for a future Earth, and how many people today die for the sake of the greedy desires of an autocratic few. Silly conspiracies aside, I think Deus Ex is an eye-opening video game that gives people the drive if not the capacity to think towards embetterring the world within the bounds of the realities of human nature, as well as the drive towards a better political solution or away from politics, which itself is the embodiment of the ambitions of a particular individual (group) at the expense of the common man. So I recommend you give it a try...

...if you can stand the outdated graphics, that is.

Salaam, from Saracen

"Girls Like This, Boys Like That": Why I Think that Dating Tips are for the Birds

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:37:43 PDT

There are countless movies, TV shows, books, websites, articles, newspaper columns, and even your closest friends who try to get to the crux of what exactly is it that members of the opposite sex want in you or in a potential relationship with you, what they would like about you, and what they would consider "good" when it comes to approaching them.

At the surface, it all seems fine: it's just talk and surface advice on how to approach a situation. But my encounter with both the media surrounding this issue and "the opposite sex" led me to believe that the whole hype surrounding this issue is nothing but hogwash designed solely to entertain the masses and mislead people in the course of social relations. But you're probably thinking this is another Marxist crackpot theory regarding ideology and media influence; never mind that I am a centrist and in total opposition to both extreme Socialism and Capitalism.

There are several reasons why I feel that this issue is problematic. First, it allows us to define the opposite sex based more on stereotypes and hypothetical "behavior patterns" rather than on their individual personalities and consequently as individual human beings in their own right. In that sense, it allows one to define another's behavior based on conceptions listed on a dating site, and limits one's understanding of members of the opposite sex. Second, it allows one to define the opposite sex in a way that pleases onself. Take for example statements on how girls supposedly like guys who are strong, buff, and have a rowdy attitude, or how guys like girls who wear certain types of clothes. Third, as a consequence of the above two, it dehumanizes the opposite sex into nothing but a commodity to be used for one's own personal pleasure as opposed to a meaningful companion who can share your joy and sufferring and vice-versa.

In that sense, I think dating tips are for the birds: they don't do anyone any good in the field of social relations. They seem to reduce the meaning of individuality and uniqueness to a particular relationship, and "systematize" - let alone institutionalize, if you want to take it that far - social relationships. In today's "progressing" societies, dating tips can therefore serve to further stagnate and corrupt people's minds when dealing with the opposite sex in any scenario, not just dating ones, and serve to generate automatons out of the human race.

If anything, the only message I agree from the vast majority of dating websites is this: be yourself. Don't let any ridiculous laundry lists about hair gel and makeup control your social interactions with the opposite sex.

Salaam, from Saracen

P.S. I don't personally date or have a girlfriend, and you'd think that I wouldn't be in a position to argue about this. Well, consider that "dating tips" are also used to make the opposite sex notice you more let alone date you... but that's the subject of another post.

Reconsidering Patriotism: Towards a More Humanist Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Wed, 14 May 2008 01:43:56 PDT

It is not uncommon that one changes one's views in light of what one encounters in life, and how one's world is suddenly shaken, but not completely stirred, in the face of an iminent groundbreaking notion... Well, maybe not that groundbreaking, but one's foundations in thought are altered nonetheless in ways that manifest themselves in action and words. Most importantly, one's attitudes shift in their entirety, and all issues related to that particular topic change.

But what, pray tell, could that particular subject be in this meager post? The title's the giveaway here, so it shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Allow me, then, to explain what you may perceive as my change of heart. In my early years into my awakening towards socio-political situations on the global scale, I was a nationalist of sorts. I had my mind set on the nation that is the Palestinian people, a "righteous" nation "oppressed" by Israel. One day, I had thought to myself, the Palestinians will win and go as far as to depose the Israeli government, reality notwithstanding (but I'm willing to bet that a lot of people, perhaps most, went through a phase of this sort at one time [and some, apparently, are still going through it]).

It was only a matter of time that I began to see the flaws in the collectivist, tribalist mindset that is Nationalism, a belief that destroys individuality and reinforces the actions - as blatantly horrendous as they may be - of the members within a selectively defined racial categories. So, I decided to be a patriot: love the nation, but be not blind in love. It sounded more plausible to me. An Arab proverb goes, "Your friend is the one who makes you cry, not the one who makes you laugh"; that is, a true friend (of the nation) will care so much about the nation as to constructively criticize its people's shortcomings.

Like any belief based purely on emotion and imagined rationality, it was bound to collapse. And this only happened recently during a couple of discussions I had with a friend of mine. The discussion started with him quoting Erich Fromm, a social psychologist and humanist philosopher (1), who once said,

Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. Patriotism is its cult.(2)

Fromm metaphorically and effectively defines Nationalism as a form of lust, in this case towards a nation, its people, and its government. Patriotism here is labelled its "cult",

a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception. In common or populist usage, "cult" has a positive connotation for groups of art, music, writing, fiction, and fashion devotees, but a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.(3).

But in many cases, a "cult" splinters off the larger group, and has beliefs that conform more or less to the mainstream, albeit it is viewed differently. In this case, Patriotism can be considered a "positive" cult, one that has appeal to the mainstream albeit still regarded as different. The crux of the idea, however, is that Patriotism can be considered a milder, "euphemized" form of Nationalism. In the end, both involve the love of one's nation and its people.

Before I get to the groundbreaking question that destroyed my hope for there ever being a "good" "Patriotism", the definitions of the words "Nationalism" and "Patriotism". In this case, I refer to the previously-used definitions in some of my posts, in that

Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a 'fatherland' (Latin patria), by individuals and groups.

This was taken from a previous post on Patriotism. For those interested,

Nationalism is an ideology that holds that (ethnically or culturally defined) nations are the "fundamental units" for human social life, and makes certain cultural and political claims based upon that belief; in particular, the claim that the nation is "the only legitimate basis for the state", and that "each nation is entitled to its own state."

This one was taken from my condemnation of nationalism.

To fully reconsider the notion of Patriotism, previously mentioned arguments for Patriotism must be reconsidered. In the aforementioned hailing of Patriotism, I had much to say about it as well as the identity of the "Patriot". However, my attitude towards Patriotism was built out of my contempt for Nationalism, seeing it as a milder and more "humanistic" alternative, if there was one. Among my commendations for "Patriotism" were "its" supposed respect for the sovereignty of other nations, non-chalance towards its affairs, support of the equality of all nation-states, and critical scrutiny of the actions of the governing body of the nation-state without ever failing to hold its members accountable for their actions and the consequences of their actions in both local and foreign policy-making situations. The crux of the matter boils down to Patriotism being the love of one's own state in particular but in a more fatherly or motherly way (i.e. with reprimand).

All my aforementioned friend, who goes by the name Torin, had to do to destroy the entire basis of my argument for Patriotism was to ask one simple question:

Why?

That is, why love a particular nation? What has "it" done to earn a place in one's heart other than provide a birthplace, a possible home, and an identity marker, assuming one is living in it, that is? Why limit your critical reprimanding love to your own nation-state? Sure, you may be ignorant of worldly affairs, but why address only the shadowy affairs of your sole nation-state's governments? A more pressing rephrasing of this question: why believe in both equality of one's nation-state and in an idea that effectively holds "your" nation closer to your heart than any other (inevitably discriminating against other nations)? Patriotism can potentially be the firestarter of Nationalism in one's heart, and may catalyze one's transformation towards this much reviled ideology. In effect, it can be just as bad as Nationalism in this sense.

One might think that this can be extended to belief systems, religions, and/or other objects of desire, not just nation-states. While I think there is a plausible basis for such an extension, consider that religions and belief systems are based on ideas grounded by dogma and certain philosophical or dialectical allegories, things that can be debated in more reasonable ways than whose nation is "the best". When it comes to objects of desire, such as entertainment media (movies, TV shows, video games, etc.) and people, that comes down to personal preference. While some friction may be generated in such processes, almost none can lead to the open discrimination and possible bloodshed that Racist Patriotism/Nationalism are attributed to.

So, what can provide itself as an alternative to the madness of our love for nation-states? What can provide itself as an alternative to such excuses for and causes of war, strife, bloodshed, and genocide? The answer seems to be another idea that I have discussed before: Humanism. Technically, I consider myself a spiritual humanist in that I attempt at reconciling my humanist beliefs with my faith: we are equals before the Eyes of God and will be judged accordingly to our own actions in front of God... at least that's what I believe in. Up to now, I was also a patriot, specifically of the nation that is the Palestinian people. But I realize that to have humanist and patriotic beliefs ultimately limits such attitudes of mine towards the borders defined here: the Palestinians. In doing so, I have collectivized "my" people, and placed an anti-humanist obstacle towards my perceived "humanism" [as discussed in a post about humanism].

In renouncing all Nationalist and Patriotic tendencies, I realize that a true humanism must transcend national boundaries no matter what the case may be. I myself had several attempts at transcending these man-made boundaries in issues such as cultural pluralism (4) and (inevitable) bias in media outlets (5). All in all, one must realize, I think, that we all are implicated in this world, and that we are each other, and no issue is a particular.

Before I leave you, none of what was mentioned above implies that I will not look at "everything" less critically: there still is a war in Iraq. There still is an occupation of the West Bank. There still exists a Fatah and a Hamas. There still are corrupt governments. But in criticizing them, I will do so from a humanist viewpoint, not out of my nonexistent love for them.

Several questions remain, and I want you to tell me what you think. Is there such thing as a "good Patriotism"? Do Patriotism and Humanism contradict each other? And why (not)?

Salaam, from Saracen

Edward Said @ Berkeley: Memory, Inequality, and Power

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:14:09 PDT

I know this is old, but it's a rather memorable lecture/seminar from the late Edward Said, posted for your watching pleasure, or displeasure if you're allergic to enlightenment. Either way, Said's voice is one of the most articulate, intellectual, moderate, and, above all, intelligent. His loss severely damaged, in my opinion, the level of intellectual discourse amongst and from Palestinians as a whole. Here's to hoping that there are Palestinians willing to grow a pair (like this man did) and stand outright against the injustices perpetrated by the political groups - Israel's government, Fatah, and Hamas (surprised?) - who take advantage of the oppression of Palestinians to maintain dominance and control.

Salaam, from Saracen

ABC Primetime: A Bakery Store Discriminates Against Muslims in America

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:51:51 PDT

There have been records upon records of discriminatory acts against Muslims and other visible minorities in the states, but this is just sickening. I for one have never seen discrimination on live video more than I have seen it in the movies and those re-enactions in documentaries. The video? Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. I was going to puke, but I don't want to waste a morning breakfast on account of a few ignorant racists... Well, 13% stood up with the Muslim woman, and 6% stood with the baker. Both the Muslim and the baker were actors, so the real condemnation goes against those who discriminated. Worse still, the remaining stood silent and did absolutely nothing. In the words of one concerned viewer, it would be no wonder to find that some of them are "closeted bigots".

The only bright side to this video is the humanity exhibited by those who stood up for the woman. This is interesting to note, considering that yesterday (or the day before?) was the commemoration of Martin Luther King, Jr. In case you haven't heard of him, or you live under a rock, he was a civil rights leader who did much to fight institutionalized and social discrimination in the States. Nevertheless, visible minorities, including Muslims, are discriminated in the States. They are discriminated in different ways, but all are quantitatively equally discriminated against. No one is special. We're all human. But apparently, some of us are stuck in our mass-produced racist and political views. Either way, enjoy the video.

Thanks to Ali for showing me the video.

Salaam, from Saracen

"Appeasing the White Man": A Foucauldian Examination of Post-9/11 Muslim Apologetic Discourse in Light of Post-9/11 Orientalism

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:59:49 PDT

The intellectual (or the intellectually lacking) debates surrounding Muslim issues post-9/11 has shaken as a whole the foundation of the Muslim body in light of the context of the "modern world", and lead to the formation of many polarized encampments from which people base their arguments and critiques on. Amongst the most exploited camps are those of the apologetic Muslims who keep parrotting "Islam is peace", promoting flowery and "hip" images of Islam through media, and speaking out against the injustices with arguments that draw out excerpts from Islamic doctrine... all at the constant urge of those who criticise Islam. "Where are the protests?" "Islam is a religion of violence." "It needs reform". "Sharia is barbaric". Time and time again, I see new literature springing out again and again repeating the same old lame old mantra. The debate is heading into a standstill b/c both sides are repeating the same stuff over and over again. [IMPORTANT: Read disclaimer at bottom of post]

The debate itself sprung out new movements from Islamic societies (societies that consider themselves Islamic or are predominantly Muslim). A lot of these movements incorporate the so-called "superior" ideologies of "democracy" and "freedom" and "secularism" into Islamic teachings. There are movements that incorporate new ideas into Islamic teachings. Some of them go as far as to renounce certain Islamic teachings such as Sharia, certain Ahadith, and even parts of the Koran. Others arise from certain tense political situations, particularly pertaining to some sort of opposition to or by fundamentalist groups in different political, temporal, and spatial contexts. Make no mistake: I'm fully aware of Muslim liberals pre-9/11 such as Abdullah Yusuf Ali. My main concern is with movements that are (probably/most likely) products of apologist discourse, and how they are produced in terms of the domineering Orientalist/Western anti-Muslim discourse.

Before I continue, let's get a few things "out of the way", and by that, I mean delivered in a clearly understood fashion. Discourse, through media, discussion, debate... whatever medium that you can read, hear, understand, etc.... is a method of exercising power. According to Michel Foucault, a prominent French intellectual, discourse is defined as

a group of statements which provide a language for talking about ...a particular topic at a particular historical moment. Discourse... constructs the topic. It defines and produces the objects of our knowledge. It governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned about. (1).

In light of this definition, Foucault argues that a discourse on a topic (let's call it "X", and for the sake of an example, let's assume X = "madness") requires several elements that define it:

1. statements about 'madness' ...
2. the rules which prescribe certain ways of talking about these topics and exclude others (rules of inclusion and exclusion)
3. 'subject' who in some ways personify the discourse--the madman, the hysterical woman, the Romantic hero, etc.
5. how this knowledge about the topic acquires authority, a sense of embodying the 'truth' about it...
6. practices within institution for dealing with the subjects--medical treatments for the insane, punishment regimes for the guilty, ways of reading Romantic poetry, night walk for Romantic poets, admiration of Romantic hero, etc.
7. discursive formation--the emergence of a new discourse, decline of the old one
--history as discontinuous, with ruptures, radical breaks

The elements require that the relayer of the discourse construct himself/herself in a position of authority or power to make such elements possible. Without such a structure, the "I" that is the "free, liberated, Western (wo)man" can not be in a position to state what (s)he calls the "capital 'T' 'Truth'"... the "absolute 'Truth'". That itself is ironic, to say the least: in order to construct the superior position, it had to be done relative to a somewhat-determined "inferior one". Those who claim they are in such a position can not possibly claim themselves to be knowledgeable of such an "absolute 'Truth'", especially since it is a "truth" that is constructed relative to another, and is done through using that discourse to justify domination and subjugation of "the other"... and one that is done so in plain sight of the "other".

Notable Palestinian intellectual Edward Said takes Foucault's analysis of power a step further by specifying such a discourse of power: Orientalism. In his groundbreaking masterpiece of the same title (Orientalism, in case you missed it a few words back), he uses Foucault's theory of power to analyze pieces of Orientalist work (art, literature, documents, etc.) dating from the Middle Ages to the present (well, up to the time he wrote the book). Said defines Orientalism as

[the] corporate institution for dealing with the Orient -- dealing with it by making statements about it, authoring views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it: in short... a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient (2).

The last statement alludes to the power-discursive nature of Orientalism as an institution that suppresses the East and lets the West speak for it. Many writers have built their theses regarding post-colonial issues and East-West relations solely on Said's theory even a few years after its release. As a discourse, Orientalism is exercised within the systems of the East and West (i.e. within the societal and political systems and relations between the two bodies and individuals within them). However, again owing to its discursive nature, Orientalism as power is created not just through a single, one-way exchange between two bodies, but as a mutual exchange of words affirming the power of one and the subjugation of the "other". One such case is the Canadian Immigration Act, which requires immigrant women to defile the men of their former countries on the grounds of their "culture" and some "inherent" "barbarism" of some sort in order to receive aid from the Canadian government; that is, the Canadian government can only be obliged to help if those who come affirm the discourse of the dominant group, thereby maintaining the power relations (3).

... Which brings me to my topic. Ever since 9/11, I felt that Western scholars and political/social figures have upped such Orientalist discourse through speeches, newspaper articles, journal papers, books, television programs, news, radio shows, "punditry", and other forms of media. Such discourse would only serve to justify human rights abuses and violations in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the invasion of these nations, the support of tyrannical governments in the Middle East (an idea that contradicts their calls for "freedom" and "democracy", which are also forms of power discourse that I have dealt with over the past 100 posts I have on this blog). Similar to the issue of Black American "gangsterism" (as portrayed by American media during the 60's, etc.) and the responses that the media "obliged" upon Black people (The Bill Cosby Show, to show that Blacks are like everyone else, which is already a given), Muslims are constantly being given a "burden of representation", and it is apparently the duty of many Muslims to "educate" Westerners that Muslims are "not bad people" and that "Islam means peace". It's already been addressed that whenever a crime is committed by Muslims, Islam is almost immediately put on trial (4).

However, Muslims are obliged by some Western media outlets to provide such "burden of representation" over and over again. And to my disgust (I bet you didn't see this one coming), I see new articles repeating the same things over and over again. Like the abovementioned case involving Black Americans, Muslims have come up with shows in the West such as "Sleeper Cell" (5) in America and "Little Mosque on the Prairie" (6) in Canada, which, suggesting from clips on YouTube, seem to portray Muslims not only in a Western light, but also in one that seems to allude to the idea of what the West considers, in the words of Mahmoud Mamdani, a "good Muslim": one who is not as religious and is complicit with Western policies abroad (7). To expound further,

"good" Muslims [are] really pro-American Muslims, and... "bad" Muslims [are] anti-American Muslims.

Mamdani goes on to explain that the "bad Muslim" is generally traditional and adheres to his faith, while the "good Muslim", as defined by Orientalist discourse (which he bases his theory on), is secular, Westernized, and supports Western policies.

This culture-talk, he claims, displays itself in the "burden of representation", a form of exercising such power. That is, the Muslims are obliged to prove that Islamic doctrine is compatible with Western values and has teachings that comply to Western values. That is, Islam is a religion for "good Muslims", not "bad Muslims". Personally, I find such arguments to be loose and superficial: to burden Muslims with proving that a religion (Islam) is compatible with certain (Western) ideologies (democracy, freedom, liberalism) is akin to submitting a religion to that ideology, as discussed in an earlier post (8). It is therefore not difficult to see why such "burden of representation" serves to legitimize the position of Western political bodies, feminist groups, and other rather Orientalist institutions; the "burden of representation", like the case of the Blacks in the States and the Canadian Immigration Act mentioned above, is a form of affirming the superiority of the West. And such apologist discourse, especially when it comes to democracy and liberalism, serves much to interpret Islam as a Western ideology and thereby submitting it to Western ideology, thereby alienating other interpretations of Islamic doctrine and justifying the continuing subjugation and interventionism of the lives of "bad Muslims", those who do not agree with Western policies and resist any submission of Islamic doctrine to Western interests and influences.

What saddens me most is that many groups have come out to maintain this disturbing status quo. There are Muslim groups that call for a total reformation of Islamic doctrine. One such group is the Islamic Reform Movement, which has come out with a call for reforming Islamic doctrine in light of Western notions of "freedom" and "democracy", and have gone as far as to introduce an abridged Koran that is supposed to be taken "literally". Their mission statement literally reads

Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy.

In this, they state the necessity for aligning Islamic doctrine with such principles. In a previous thesis, I deconstructed that notion, claiming that there not need be a necessity of implementation of democracy nor a necessity of the compability issue to begin with (9, for those who want to read another long and boring essay, but I don't blame you).

Twenty-first century Muslims have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam (Islamic World) and Dar al-Harb (non-Islamic World), or we can reform Islam to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past.

Here, the organization uses names of figures associated with current Islamist political movements, in effect neglecting the social, political, and historical circumstances that lead to such groups being formed... not that I support these groups to begin with. The ironic part of this excerpt is that they used a historical representation of the Muslim nation and the nations that were at war with the Muslims (the "Dar-ul-Harb" and the "Dar-ul-Islam") to try to get at the crux of the problem as being cultural and/or ideological rather than political, social, or historical. Regardless, politics can't be reduced to culture or traditions, as Mamdani has postulated. Never mind that there are radical Christian groups in Indonesia, radical Zionist parties in Israel, and radical Hindu groups in India, but in common discourse, there is not much literature analyzing Christian, Jewish, or Hindu doctrines based on the actions of these groups, but rather analysis of political circumstances that brought these groups about. It is taken for granted that these religious groups act out of political interests. However, when the case involves Islamist political parties and reactionary groups, which are focal points of such Orientalist literature, there is a sudden historical and political amnesia surrounding the origins of such groups.

We, as Muslims who desire to live in harmony with people of other religions, agnostics, and atheists choose the latter option. We can no longer allow Islamic extremists to use our religion as a weapon. We must protect future generations of Muslims from being brainwashed by the Islamic radicals. If we do not stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

The identification of the "good Muslim" as well as the further dichotomization of Muslims by this reform group are underscored in this last bit. Apparently, the only alternative to their ideas of Islamic reform are bad, and will lead other Muslims to become homocidal maniacs. This is one such group that has submitted itself to Western ideologies and principles and created a dichotomy that may in effect divide Muslims. Now, one might say that yes, Islamic doctrine does call for harmony and peace with nations and people, but one does not have the authority to call one's own interpretation of the religion as "Truth", especially when it involves a horribly abridged and therefore incomplete interpretation of doctrine (i.e. cherry-picking verses) such as the case presented here.

On a similar tone is the notable "good Muslim", Irshad Manji, host of the site "Muslim Refusenik" (kids, can you spell "irony"?). I've recently had the displeasure to watch her latest film, "Faith Without Fear". Other than the historical inaccuracies present in the film (Irshad, the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) homeland is not Yemen [don't believe me? She actually said that]), the movie itself seems to be a genuine call for reform, and she raised a few points that are sound at the surface. However, the undertone of the entire movie was the marginalization and misrepresentation of Muslim women and men: women in the movie were shown wearing hijabs, and men were shown supporting and glorifying martyrdom. She also associated herself with the body of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another secularized, Westernized "good Muslim" (or does she consider herself otherwise?). At the same time, she delegitimized criticism towards her cause by showing excerpts of clips with Muslim leaders and people seemingly throwing ad hominem attacks at her. Even more absurd is her insistence on revising Islamic doctrine at its core, and placing herself in a position of authority to do so. From what I've heard, however, her book, "The Trouble with Islam", addresses a different audience, villifying Islamic doctrine and further fueling the "burden of representation" on other Muslims. This was actually confirmed in her DemocracyNow! debate with As'ad Abu Khalil (10) in regards to protests by Muslims towards terrorist acts and such apologies on part of Muslims towards what "other Muslims" do. In effect, Manji and the Islamic Reform Group seek to interpret Islam from outside the framework of Islam, not from within it, as this only fuels the status quo of dominance over the East.

There are other "good Muslims" the West has exploited to re-affirm their position of power relative to the "East" such as Tarek Fatah, Tawfik Hamid, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, among others. Some of the aforementioned don't consider themselves Muslim, but are on par with those who have been warped by the discursive dominance of the West over the East. In short, they are merely apologists who have taken the next initiation rite that is the Westernization of the East.

Let me make myself clear: this is not a critique of arguments against Islam. This is a critique of the power relations that underscore the East-West divide that has been constructed in post-9/11 discourse on Islam. My opposition here is to those who interpret Islam and consider themselves absolute authorities over other Muslims rather than viewing other interpretations as simply interpretations in light of different individual, social, political, and historical contexts. In English, I would debate Manji if we both opened our minds to each others' interpretation of doctrine as well as other interpretations of Islamic doctrine... as opposed to having her state that she is an authority primarily based on self-granted Western "moral superiority". I personally believe that if one loves one's own religion, one must continuously study his/her religion's doctrine and in effect be able to question it or ask questions about it and try to seek rationale from within the framework of the religion. And that could easily apply to being a rather pacifict and devout Muslim as equally as to a conservative hardliner who is more concerned about shoving religion down other people's throats than self-reflecting one's own believes (that is, when both of these cases follow their own interpretation of doctrine blindly).

As with my discussion on Islam, Reform, and Democracy (see above for link), the aforementioned arguments underscore the importance of reaching a resolution of this issue. On a slightly different note than my discussion on allegations of "Islamic Misogynism" (11), the post-colonial social, political, intellectual, economical, and discursive relationship between Orientalist and Islamic scholars, the West and the East, and Western governments and Eastern governments should be altered. This discourse only perpetuates dominance of Western powers over the East and over the Muslim body. Such discourse is detrimental and dishonest, and should be removed. Muslim scholars, in my opinion, should put their foot down and deconstruct the discourse in a "take-it-or-leave-it" manner. In other words, they should stop apologizing (that's right) for what other Muslims do out of political, individual, and social circumstances, and identify Muslims as individuals with motives and desires like everyone else, rather than perpetuate the collectivizing dichotomy constructed by Western Orientalist discourse and thereby "appease the white man". Here's how I would see it: my defense of Islamic doctrine is not based on appeasing anyone. I write it out or say it once, and that's it. I could care less if anyone did not care or listen. I did what I had to, and if someone is going to drone on about how Islam is "bad" or that there are no Muslims "protesting these vile attacks", there is absolutely no need for me as a person to come out and protest when people would already know my position and arguments against such interpretations. If they don't consider it, then that's their problem. This alread applies for Christians with regards to abortion clinic bombers, Jews with regards to radical movements like Kach, and Hindus with regards to nationalist parties such as Bharatiya Janata. Why, then, as a Muslim, do I have to constantly apologize for the actions of members with Islamist movements such as Hamas, AQ, etc. who have absolutely no connection with me whatsoever other than the common identification as followers of the Muslim faith?

The alteration of such power relations would then lead to the next step: debate between groups on the same intellectual level as opposed to a dominant vs. oppositional relationship. This can come through interfaith dialogue, understanding, and mutual reconciliation. At the same time, it must be taken that all groups must be represented in dialogue... even extremist ones. Religious and Orientalist (would you call them that after the removal of power relations?) scholars should in turn be as open to legitimate criticisms of their arguments as possible as to promote understanding. Moreover, different Muslim groups must, in my opinion at least, reconcile with each other and with other (non-Muslim) religious groups to gain more understanding of their own religion, Islam, and of other religions and people. Of course, this whole post alone can not remedy the entire grand scheme of things that is the status quo, but it is imperative, from my perspective, that the East-West relationship overall should be altered at its very core, and that must start through discourse and political reconciliation before the amends mentioned in this paragraph be applied.

I would like to sum my piece with a couple of messages. First, to the Muslim apologist crowd, a few words of caution: you must realize when your actions are either in defense of Islam or in appeasement of those who criticize it from positions of self-proclaimed authority and "superiority". There is a clear line between defending Islam and defending Islam to appease those who give you the "burden of representation". Remain strong in faith, but not blind. Question your doctrine, but do not consider yourself in a position of authority from within the framework of Western secularism, "democracy", and "freedom". Feel free to engage your community in discussion, and highlight the fact that Muslims are individuals and not just collectives, and that the Islamist groups have political and historical origins that must not be forgotten when analyzing political situations such as the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel/Palestine. Not doing so is intellectually dishonest, and serves to appease the ideological constructs of the "Us vs. Them" and other false dichotomies.

Second... to those who give Muslims the burden of representation, whether they consider themselves Muslim or not: give it a rest. As a Muslim, I am not obliged to appease you. Muslims have already stated their defense, and their responses can be found over the net. They're there for you to research and read. Muslim scholars are available to answer your questions by phone, fax, email, or SMS. If you ignore such a wealth of informational resources, then you're the one remaining purposefully ignorant, and I could care less. Also, don't think that your wanton ignorance of the social, political, and historical circumstances surrounding Muslim societies in the grand scope of time and space, as well as your unabashed criticism of Muslims based on "culture", has gone unnoticed. If you think Muslims are bad, look at all other civilizations, including yours, which has a history as bloody as if not more than others that also continues to this present day. It's about time you look in a mirror to realize that your society is as capable of violence as any other societies, and when it comes to such actions, it will always be reduced to the individuals (in power), not the culture nor the collectivity as a whole. Drop your act and seek out Muslims on the same level. You're not superior, nor intended to be. God created us as equals, so see each other and others who are not part of your society as equals, and deal with them as equals. Don't perpetuate the dominance. It goes against your so-called "ideals".

In conclusion, Muslim apologists should break the cycle of appeasement and start standing on their own feet by re-examining their own faith as well as the social, political, and historical conditions that make each case surrounding Muslims and Islamist groups unique. The appeasement only serves to perpetuate such power relations and justifies the colonialist and interventionist policies both pre- and post-9/11. In effect, Orientalist writers are not in a position to demand that Muslims subjugate their own religion to Western values. There is absolutely no justification for burdening Muslims with proving that their religion is submissive to Western ideas and values. The discursive, political, and social power relations between the East and West should be changed on individual, societal, intellectual, and governmental/political levels. Such a change can promote better and more serious (i.e. intellectual) understanding between people of different religious groups, namely Muslims and non-Muslims in this case, and resolution of political and social crises that ail Islamic and Western societies of today. As mentioned before, however, it is imperative that the power relations be amended; otherwise, the overall status quo will continue. People around the world, Muslims and non-Muslims, will suffer and pay for their bodies, their minds, their souls, their lives, their families, their homes, their people, their land, and their humanity (when they could be diverting their resources to alleviating oppression and building a better tomorrow)... all for the sake of "appeasing the white man".

Salaam, from Saracen

P.S. Mind the long title and post. I know it sounds somewhat formal, but rest assured, this is not a formal post. This is just me trying to get at the crux of an issue that I see as problematic not only in Islamic societies, but the world in general.

P.P.S. [DISCLAIMER: This is not an attack against white culture or white people. This is not intended as a racist attack, and is not implied that all white people are part of this domineering power-relation and domination of Muslims. The phrase "appeasing the white man" is more intended for effect rather than attack.

The Ideologization of Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:36:22 PST

Religion as it stands today faces many issues and problems, many of them being by no means novel. Of these problems, I will address one of the biggest issues in this post: the limiting of religions to mere ideologies that serve social, economical, political, cultural and individual interests. This action is a form of exploitation as it seeks to twist the teachings and values of a religion and gear them towards aspirations that are in most cases dishonorable, selfish and less than noble. In some cases, they may be geared towards reformist interests, which may or may not be consistent with religious values. Regardless, I personally think that such ideologization of religion is incorrect and hypocritical in many cases, and I will base this post on my perspective as I lightly discuss the abovementioned issues.

Ideologies are sets of values or principles that define a set of common goals that a group of people wish to attain. These people use ideas, values, principles, rules, etc. from more or less general sources in their aspirations towards goals specific to these people. They can draw such values from political, economical, social, and religious grounds. Many ideologies exist today. Communism is based on the works of Karl Marx, who was more or less a political sociologist and thinker who followed his own ideals. Capitalism is based on the want and need for private business ownership. Classic liberalism and social liberalism are based on capitalism. They can also be mottoes and the values of companies and businesses. As such, ideologies define these common aspirations that people aim towards, and many people follow them as if they were religions: some follow them blindly and without question, and some follow them with constructive skepticism.

Ideologies, however, are also made for uniting people or controlling them, among many other purposes that could only be used to keep people in line with the demands of their superiors. According to David Minar, ideologies have come to be recognized

as a collection of certain ideas with certain kinds of content, usually normative; as the form or internal logical structure that ideas have within a set; by the role in which ideas play in human-social interaction; by the role that ideas play in the structure of an organization; as meaning, whose purpose is persuasion; and as the locus of social interaction.

The common point that these definitions convey about the term ideology is that it serves a regulatory role in that it streamlines the thoughts of the people towards serving a certain set of goals. This is affirmed by William Mullins, who states that an ideology

must have power over cognitions, be capable of guiding one's evaluations, provide guidance towards action, and must be logically coherent. (1)

Political actions tend to be specific in nature, pertaining to a particular frame of time and space, and tend to be supported by the same semantics that propel people to commit to such actions.

Most current ideologizations of religion, from my POV at least, seem to speak the language of religion in a certain political, social, temporal, and geographical context. That polarizes and limits the religion to a certain goal and/or movement. Take the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and even Al Qaeda (the most reviled of them all). Even the Saudi government uses religion to ideologically justify the Saudi monarchy. This in turn leads us to the question: can ideology exploit religion? Well, ideology is the set of values, and those who use religion to justify a certain ideology make the best out of it by cherry-picking religious beliefs that remotely seem to conform to their visions and aspirations. Obviously, then, it is an exploitation on part of those who originate the said ideology. A great example is the case of Pakistan, where the patriarchal rule has established laws that men could easily slip out of... Laws regarding honor killings and rape, which are consistently being used by men to escape the hands of justice (2). There are other cases reported of political groups surfacing ever since the initiation of the state of Pakistan that vary in terms of sect and goals to be achieved in terms of political gain and societal change.

Christians have also been ideologizing their religion. The most famous of these exploitations is of course that of Nazi Germany (3). The idea of the white Christian human as part of the "master race" was attractive to many Germans who were disenfranchised post-World War I. There's also the KKK, who seek to spread their church of hate and bigotry throughout the United States and still do so to this day. Other elements include Indonesia's Laskar Jesus and Lebanon's Phalange/Kataeb and LF, who speak of uniting their countries under a Christian flag.

People of other religions do it as well. Kach, the Israeli group that was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, espoused a hatred towards Arabs based on interpreted Biblical allegories and verses that seemed to talk of Arabs as misled and wayward peoples. Hindu nationalist parties also espouse sentiments on similar lines towards non-Hindu minorities in India; the face of this movement these days seems to be Narendra Modi, member of the Bharatiya Janata nationalist party (4), which holds Hindu supremacy above all.

What they all have in common is there tendency to limit the religion they adhere to within the boundaries of a political framework that they have defined for themselves. But for the most part, they've been political, and that is the main problem with ideologizing a religion to a specific goal: at most times, it tends to be political. And political aspirations, as have been noted above, are quite selfish in nature. To associate rules of justice with rules of partisanship doesn't sound so rosy (case of "honor killings" in Pakistan). But these movements need not be radical. They can be as liberal as Progressive Muslims and Tikkun. These movements are geared towards social and progressive reform, but even that is political in nature. Using religion to gain power is also a dubious matter, and that of course is... need I say it?... political in form.

This makes ideologization a dangerous process. Limiting religion to a certain political and social framework might jeopardize the religion to an extent that the perceptions of religion and the way it is practiced become infringed upon and take form of misunderstandings and phobias that could surface about the "other", especially considering the notion of radical Muslims who use religious ideas to put their religion to shame and commit horrendous acts. Ideologization devalues the true meaning of a religion by reducing it to a mere and specific ideology that requires people to submit to it. It also seeks to delineate religious values of equity and equality by isolating and cherry-picking verses and scripture for certain verses that only remotely conform or seem to conform with their ideals and use those to back up their political aspirations, despite all consensus that may contradict their interpretation of the religion that they follow. In that way, they seem to alienate the religion, themselves, and themselves from the religion.

I urge people to take heed and stop trying to limit a way of life to a specific set of ideals that conform to one linear interpretation of this set of ideals, and instead deal with the set of ideals as a whole rather than cherry-pick it to suit one's own ends. Such action does more harm to the religion and its followers more than it does to the movement that supposedly espouses the religion, but limits it to nothing more than a mere ideology.

P.S. I know I haven't been posting much. I was out enjoying my busy life and trying to survive my 3rd year of university, which is still going on and is so far the busiest semester I have ever had.

Salaam, from Saracen

The War on Democracy, a Documentary by John Pilger

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:12:46 PST

A user named "dodg531" uploaded this 10-part documentary on America's war on democracy. If you're reading this, dodg531, kudos to you from myself.

Notice the onus of this film and how it's illustrated in this first part: comparing the sheltered bubble that we all live in to the grim situation which many in third-world countries endure daily, and view each passing second as a struggle for survival. The desperation is largely blamed at "American domination" through right-wing dictators like Pinochet who stratified the pyramid of economic inequality and widened its base for the interests of the upper quintile.

Despite this, Simon Bolivar, the known "El Libertador" of South America, is brought forth as a reminder that revolution can crush a foreign influence given the people unite. Chavez is brought up as a potential change and antagonist towards American foreign policy, which, through "aggressive media coverage", brought forth opposition towards the alternative that is Chavez. However, I personally am not a fan of Chavez, but better Chavez than a puppet.

This video sheds light into Chavez's beliefs and how his vision of democracy seeks to include every Venezuelan and promote "human values". What I find interesting is his emphasis on targeting poverty and how he finds the "American way of life" (i.e. capitalism) "stupid" with regards to tackling the issue of poverty. While both Capitalism and Socialism have their ills, I personally believe they can work best together (give and take).

This 2nd part of Pilger's documentary also sheds light into the new policy changes that Chavez is implementing, thereby discrediting opposition towards his rule and at the same time plans for his deposition from office (i.e. foreign policy intervention).

Another part I find interesting is the example of the middle class gentleman who, like the other privately owned media institutions which have been more or less wrongly accusing the government for censorship, oppose Chavez based on politically-based grounds, primarily, as Pilger states, on how they

"lost... political power over a huge oil economy".

Despite this protest, capitalism still remains booming in Venezuela.

The upper class

kept a large slice of the profits

from oil. That ended when Chavez went into power, and rightly so. Yet because he refrains from maintaining the status quo, the U.S. administration complains about Chavez not conforming to U.S. interests.

And why the hell should he? Sure, he may not be an angel, but he's working on the interests of his own people.

Politics being what they are, opposition still remains. And it should for a country to progress democratically (read Hegelian dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis, etc.). The case in point happened on April 11, 2002, where anti-Chavez protestors gunned down Chavez supporters and, via the use of videos and media angles, as well as a lot of editing, blamed Chavez supporters for the strife. Regardless of what happened, none of this can be blamed on Chavez moreso than on the protestors on both sides. Chavez should have stopped this, though, as he had the authority. Interestingly enough, anti-Chavez police elements were actually gunning down Chavez supporters.

The interesting thing about this fold of events is that it turned out to be a coup. This was the coup that overthrew Chavez back in 2002, and how a businessman-turned-dictator took over and cruelly abolished democracy. I find it interesting that people supported this madness... That the elected president of Venezuela was overthrown by a coup and the media justified and twisted this incident made it all the more hypocritical, and only serves to fuel my hatred for foreign policy, especially that of the U.S. administration.

The media is a weapon that has been used for all the wrong reasons, and for now I'm grateful that people like John Pilger came out with such a painfully accurate documentary like this.

Of worthy notice is the pain and agony that callers to the radio broadcasters exclaim 1 minute into this part of the documentary:

"My soul aches for my son and daughter and all the young ones, who will be adrift at the mercy of these corrupt people who have thrown this country into total chaos. It's immoral."

"The hope of a people has gone. The constitution's gone. Democracy's gone. The hope of the children has gone."

It pains me to see people willing to support such corruption.

But Chavez's supporters didn't let him down: they came out and exposed the lies of the corrupt government. This lead to the presidential guard's taking over the palace, and Chavez being reinstated into his office (the one Venezuelans chose him in particular to sit in) as well as a comical outcome: the plotters fleeing to their sheltered homes in Miami.

Documents surfaced that proved that the U.S. administration funded the coup indirectly via U.S.AID, a "charity" that I believe should be disbanded for its less than honorable actions. The money went into the pockets of the usurpers, who Bush eagerly defended by saying that this money was a step towards "freedom". I call bull.

Pilger then tells us of the obvious nature of the American empire that is built on greed, corruption, selfish interests, shadowy agendas, poor people, and stacks of dead bodies... all for the "glory" that is the "American way of life". Why?

Empires have nothing to do with freedom. They're vicious. They're all about conquest, theft, control and secrets.

America's administration is the new Julius Caesar.

The example of Guatemala in the beginning of the video highlights the brainwashing of the American media, which seeks to brainwash the average American's perception of the world. It is also highlighting the problems of Guatemala back in the days when Arbenz was ruling Guatemala. Like Chavez, he was elected. He had "modest reform policies". And like Chavez, the U.S. administration hated him and wanted him to go. In effect, the CIA supported a coup by using propaganda and terrorism to destroy the Arbenz regime and impose a brutal dictatorship that wasted the lives of thousands of Guatemalans. And the funny thing is that Washington was there all the way to support the corrupt regime. Hypocrites.

And then there was Castro. Cuba was known for its medical and economical advances... and for not bowing down to America's administration.

What's gold in this video is what the New York congressman (possibly Democrat), Jose Serrano, said, with pure cynical sarcasm:

How dare you, 90 miles from my country, for the last 45 years, put a different form of government! How dare you haven't allowed American corporations to buy you out! How dare you continue this arrogance that says that you'll never succumb to us! Don't you know who we are? Don't you know who these corporations are? Don't you know your life would be better if you drink Coca-Cola every day?

I couldn't stop laughing from this.

What's also funny is the "Red Scare" that swept the American nation. This highlights the control the media and government have on the people of the United States. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, though: the prospect of a mislead populace doesn't sound too comforting should I be part of it.

Pilger then brings up the fascist overthrow of Allende in Chile, and how Allende supporters were tortured, raped, and killed by Pinochet's goons, as well as the inhumane treatment of these people. The medical student Pilger interviews graphically describes this occurrence. I will not spoil the "surprise" for you. Watch it yourself.

Many of those who were imprisoned in the stadium mentioned were never to be seen or heard from again...

A Chilean balladier described the horror of this torture in the beginning of this video, only to be put to death 2 days later. This would precede the description of the coup on Allende. Nixon wantonly ordered the removal of Allende, and got what he wanted. And in the midst, Washington denied the attack. Yet Pilger proves them wrong again, pointing out that these fascists and the elite were gaining the upper hand with the help of the "freedom-loving" U.S. government.

And they have supporters. Disgusting. Yes, I know I said it before, but I do need to repeat myself.

After receiving more graphic testimonies from torture victimes, Pilger confronts Duane Clarridge, head of CIA, Latin American branch. This bigot denied the sufferring of those who need not have sufferred. His argument? It's okay to overthrow a democratically-elected government.

And it's worth preserving national interests, continues this bloated buffoon.

Pilger describes the "School of the Americas", where interrogation and torture techniques were taught to the henchmen of these bastards who ruled South America via U.S. administration proxy relationships. And these techniques were outright fascist. What ensues is how this influential center promoted the brutal actions of these terrorist dictators who served the interests of those fascists.

Then there were the massacres in El Salvador: children... CHILDREN! Not the killers, but the VICTIMS. A mother described graphically how children were rounded up and shot.

Pilger then returns to Clarridge, who defends himself by saying that national interests are more important. And yet, it is these interests that lead the world to hate the American government.

Sister Dianna Ortiz describes her ordeal with the Guatemalan military. She, an outspoken critic of the treatment of the indigenous Mayan people of Guatemala, is imprisoned and tortured and... gang-raped.

The 8th part of the documentary on Youtube starts with Reagan spinning on totalitarianism, naming it "democracy". The spin starts with dictators who supposedly bring economic success to the nations they rule with iron fists. At the surface, things look good. Dig deeper, and you'll find stratification at its best. The bustling of the upper class veils the larger lower classes, who live in poverty, unemployment and harsh conditions. Life in Chile is good for those "well off". Those who aren't well off still suffer, and their plight is not in good hands. It's in the hands of the corrupt governments that rule Latin America.

Then there's Bolivia, which was ruled by elitists. It was an example of the corrupt right-wing governments that led Latin American countries in the past few decades. But there is change, as Pilger points out. And this change is already coming.

Bolivia's dictatorship is described in as stereotypical a manner as possible: fat, righ men sitting atop golden chairs. Yet, Pilger shifts his attention to the response to those greedy enough to sell their country's resources just to fill their fat pockets. Even worse was how these corrupt government destroyed the opposition, killing those who simply protested against the government. Called the nightmare of Latin America, Bolivia was just another unsung example of brutal tyranny supported by the Amerikan empire. But that was the legacy that preceded Evo Morales, another upsetter of the U.S. administration.

The last part of an excellent documentary by John Pilger (check out his ZNET archive and homepage). He ends the video by reminding us of the Holocaust's important lesson: NEVER AGAIN. Too bad a lot of people didn't learn that.

All in all, I'm sick of the U.S. administration's hypocrisy. This string of foreign policy should stop. In the end, truth will stand clear from error, and the American administration will learn that its ways are indeed errorful. I only pray that the errors of today be reprimanded for the generation of tomorrow.

But who am I kidding? As long as the American administration is maintaining its iron-hold on corrupt governments, we won't go anywhere but down.

Salaam, from Saracen

The Inner Life of a Cell

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:01:48 PST

If you haven't known by now, I am a student of science, and viewing what I learn about in action is just thrilling for me. I'm an avid Cell Biology fanatic, and I'm not just saying this because I find this video awesome. This one was made by, according to the YouTube caption, geniuses at Harvard as well as XVIVO, so hats off to them for making such a spectacular video. Enjoy it!

Find out more by looking up this resource.

Salaam, from Saracen

P.S. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the poll that I am conducting on Musharraf and the State of Emergency.

Poll: Musharraf and the State of Emergency in Pakistan

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:11:53 PST

The poll can be found on the right side of the page, under the blog archive. If you want a little bit of background, research Pakistan's current political climate over news sources and read this post.

I'd probably not be polite if I said the following outright in an open debate regarding Pakistan's state of politics:

Has Pakistani President GENERAL Pervez Musharraf flipped his lid?!?!?!

Alright, I'm going to tone it down now. There's a debate that has been surfacing over the past few weeks regarding his decision to curb freedoms in Pakistan amidst growing protests against his rule that have been instigated by his rivals, some of whom wish to see Musharraf behind bars or 6 feet under (or maybe even 20,000 leagues under the sea with an anchor tied around his legs and secured around his neck, but that's stepping over the line). One could see why: the growing unpopularity and insecurity surrounding this tyrant lead him to initiate such intimidating protocols. The detention of the chief justice didn't help calm things down, either.

I would personally like to see this debate settled somewhat. In light of Blogger's new poll application, I set up a poll with several options. The question is on whether Musharraf is right in what he is doing. I personally strongly disagree, the reason being that Musharraf has no right to curb the freedom of his people and at the same time preach freedom and democracy the way he does when he's not facing (legitimate) opposition. It shows how incompetent he is in handling a situation such as this, when all the people want is a different leadership.

On the bright side, this issue is bringing to light the typical loathsome politics used by almost all government leaders and politicians to date. Fingers are pointing all over, and advertising campaigns are pointing out the incompetence of not only the subjects of political advertisement, but also its perpetrators.

But I want to hear your input: do you (strongly) (dis)agree with Musharraf on this one? Comments, opinions, suggestions, compliments and insults are welcome.

Salaam, from Saracen

Stoking More Divisions in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:04:02 PST

And this time, the Iraqi government seems to be responsible. Just when I read the details, I couldn't help but feel irrevocable contempt for a government that is aiding the forces that seek to divide and conquer Iraq by actually promoting the divide. The headline here speaks for itself:

It is a volatile city, but one that is vital to Iraq's future, and Kirkuk is now facing its toughest test yet. Just weeks before a scheduled referendum on the city's future, Arab residents are being paid to pack up and leave. It is a controversial scheme, tied up in the struggle over which community should have control of Kirkuk and its huge oilfields. The so-called jewel of the north lies around 250km northeast of the Iraqi capital, and has always been a valuable prize.(Al-Jazeera, 11-06-07)

Un-!@#$%^&believable. What the hell are they thinking?

And what's the issue? The fact is that we have three ethnic groups claiming Kirkuk as their own. Three cheers for this form of "democracy" that Bush has implemented on Iraq. But what's the deal with removing the Arabs especially? Apparently, some Kurds can't forgive and forget Saddam's inhumane atrocities that were committed on the Kurds. That's a possibility, but let's be honest here. It's apparent that several reasons might be responsible for this policy. One is the intent of the Coalition to divide and conquer Iraq. Through peddlers like Khalilzad, this could be done without them having to worry about the Iraqi government faltering in its loyalty. Another is the possibility that the government itself is made up of a bunch of totalitarian !@#$%^&* (and trust me: you wouldn't want to know the word I censored).

Either way, if Iraq is to unite, a measure like this is the last one could implement for such a seemingly evitable goal, especially since the form of goverment that was supposedly imposed is a form of "democracy". What do you think? Is this policy a move towards a united Iraq, or is it fanning the flames of discrimination and hate?

Salaam, from Saracen

On Stealing Wireless Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Saracen) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:37:52 PST

Just when I got my laptop, I decided to try on the wireless feature at my neighborhood. I was surprised that many people, who had wireless routers and networks, were detected by my laptop. I was even more surprised at the fact that a good number of them were unprotected. Connecting to one gave me a faster connection than the one I had at home. I was tempted to stay connected, but I felt I was doing something that I shouldn't be (call it guilt). I mean, it's not my fault that I was able to tap into my neighbor's internet, even though a door wide open that leads to something wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have to or can go into it.

So, I disconnected.

I mean, sure: it's not like I killed someone, but it's still as bad as stealing someone's wallet. What if the guy paid for bandwidth? What if his bills are already outrageously high? What if he was doing some serious work that required a consistently hi-speed connection? That would certainly make me a bad neighbor.

But seriously, whose fault is it? Like I mentioned in the first paragraph, two wrongs don't make a right, but considering that a lot of people would rather take the easy way, the distinction seems to go away. It's like that little voice in your head nagging, "Come on, you're just borrowing some bandwidth. It's not like the guy's paying for it."

Bottom line: I personally think that stealing wireless internet is wrong simply because it is in and of itself an act of robbery. Stealing someone's unsecured wireless internet is as bad as hacking into a secured wireless network and stealing the internet, especially since hackers can access more than just the internet from such wireless networks.

What do you think? Is stealing from unsecure wirless networks okay, or is it as immoral as hacking to the network and stealing the bandwidth?