My parents say arabs will never form democratic states.

[Panzer Grenadier]

I was watching the national news tonight with my dad and the top story was of course the death of yassar arafat, and it was showing scenes of the funureal and all those crazies shooting off their AK-47 in the air. My dad says "One, thing is for sure is these guys will never be able to govern themselves." I basically said that the natural state of man is freedom, and history shows that all people strive for freedom. So my dad says why haven't they become free yet? I retort that Europe was once ruled by feudal monarchies, and they became free and spawned the United States of America. Its called evolution and progress. He then says if the Europeans can do it then why can't the middle east. I basically said that the middle east has historically been a region that has been constantly in contest by foreign empires, and therefore the arab people have not had a sufficent chance to govern themselves, and that the Arabs were actually pretty scientifically and culturally advanced in the middle ages. I said that arabs are finally getting the chance to govern themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. He replied that its just a waste of money. So I asked him if he had any better ideas, and he said we should just nuke em. That got me angry and I stopped argueing because obvioubsly there is no reasoning with someone who wants to take an action like that. So here I am writing now. What do you think of my parents, and do you guys have any suggestions on how to further argue my point in future discussions with him?

[Stark]

My God. Shep has a son!

Its just not worth it. My dad has some crazy outdated ideas about many things, and its not worth starting an argument about things people can't be objective about. Just avoid it, at least until you move out

[Durandal]

I was watching the national news tonight with my dad and the top story was of course the death of yassar arafat, and it was showing scenes of the funureal and all those crazies shooting off their AK-47 in the air. My dad says "One, thing is for sure is these guys will never be able to govern themselves." I basically said that the natural state of man is freedom, and history shows that all people strive for freedom.

Then you're buying into the Bush administration's propaganda. The hard truth of the matter is that not everyone holds the freedom that Western values bring as the highest priority. Many hold stability as a higher priority. And what is this "natural state of man" theory you're talking about? Humans are social animals, and they willingly give up certain freedoms in exchange for societal protections.

Humans typically see freedom in regards to themselves. If someone is free to do as he wishes in a society, he has no problems. Saddam Hussein may have outlawed political expression, but that's not a concern for the people who were satisfied with his regime, now was it?

While we are social, we are also selfish. If someone in a society is free to do as he wishes, then as far as he's concerned, he's free. Take Christianity in the United States as an example. How many Christians do you see complaining that Wicca is not officially recognized as a religion? Not many. Even though it impugns on the freedoms of others, it's not a concern for many people.

So my dad says why haven't they become free yet? I retort that Europe was once ruled by feudal monarchies, and they became free and spawned the United States of America. Its called evolution and progress. He then says if the Europeans can do it then why can't the middle east. I basically said that the middle east has historically been a region that has been constantly in contest by foreign empires, and therefore the arab people have not had a sufficent chance to govern themselves, and that the Arabs were actually pretty scientifically and culturally advanced in the middle ages. I said that arabs are finally getting the chance to govern themselves in Iraq and Afghanistan. He replied that its just a waste of money.

And he's right. When those people really want freedom, they'll fight for it themselves. Historically, that is what's happened. Your theory that man's "natural state" is to be free is ridiculously nebulous.

[Panzer Grenadier]

You are right Durandal, I also belive one has to fight to liberate themselves, but I was using that argument in regards to my dad categorically saying arabs could never be free just because they are arabs.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip. So I asked him if he had any better ideas, and he said we should just nuke em. That got me angry and I stopped argueing because obvioubsly there is no reasoning with someone who wants to take an action like that. snip

Point out to your father that such an opinion puts him up their with Hitler and Stalin.

[Master of Ossus]

Point out to your father that such an opinion puts him up their with Hitler and Stalin.

No.

[Stuart Mackey]

Point out to your father that such an opinion puts him up their with Hitler and Stalin.

No.

Thats it? " "

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

No.
As in, this is some young teenage kid talking polotics with his hot tempered bigoted dad, and you want the kid to inject Hitler into the sitution.
You WANT this kid to get smacked or something? If he's half the troglodite he sounds like, then popping his kid once for "talking shit" isn't out question here.
Let's not get somebody hurt here to make a point.(To a moron.)

[Bob the Gunslinger]

I thought the arab states had more than 500 years of self rule under the various Islamic empires in their region. Even under Mohammad.

[Stuart Mackey]

No.
As in, this is some young teenage kid talking polotics with his hot tempered bigoted dad, and you want the kid to inject Hitler into the sitution.
You WANT this kid to get smacked or something? If he's half the troglodite he sounds like, then popping his kid once for "talking shit" isn't out question here.
Let's not get somebody hurt here to make a point.(To a moron.)

Given that he is asking for advice about how further such discussion, then I can saftly assume that you did not read the original post.

[UCBooties]

As Lewis points out in his book What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernism in the Middle East, the concept that the Arabs have never had an oppurtunity to rule themselves is a misnomer. the times of scientific and cultural advancement you speak of took place durring the reign of the Ottoman Empire, which was a ruling state before Europe, and more notably Christianity began to take interest in the region. However, it is also pointed out that even under the Ottomans, the Arab world was not very well united since the majority of its people were still based in a tribal society. However, the main point of divergence between Christian based European monarchies and the Middle east is that, theough European monarches claimed devine right to rule and were influenced by the church, church and state were distinct entities, even if they were viewed as both being part of a larger system. In the Middle Eastern culture, there has never been a movement for secular government. Their system of government is totally based in the tenants of Islamic faith. The citizens of the Arab world have proven to be quite unwilling to share adopt any Western convention that has not had a solely practical application.

In the medievil movement, the crititerion of choice was usefulness; they translated what was useful, that is to say primarily medicine, astronomy, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and some philosophy. And that's all. They did not translate literature of any kind. In the bibleography of works translated in the Middle Ages from Greek to Arabic, we find no poets, no dramatists, not even historians. ... This was clearly a cultural rejection: you take what is useful from the infidel; but you don't need to look at his absurd ideas or to try and understand his inferior literature, or to study his meaningless history (Lewis 139).

We (and they) can cry all they want about the horrors of Western involvement, but the fact is, their culture has systematicly rejected any aspect it could not use to advance itself and scorned all of the cultures it has come in contact with. They have attempted to work with in a modern world society while abjectly refusing to accept the reality that no nation can be simultaneasly isolationist and a world power. And as a result, they have collapsed into theocratic dictaorships.

However, despite their incredibly bleak history on the subject, their is always hope for democratization. Egypt is slowly phasing in local elections and Afghanis are cautiously optimistic about their own newly instituted democratic framework. Free market trade has a tendancy to make people more accepting of democratic philosphies, they tend to ask, if I can make the decisions about how my personal life is run, why can't I have a part in the government decisions that afect me. So a lot of countries end up heading to democratic reform led by their wallets. It's what the US is hoping will occur in China thanks to the free trade zones and the Middle East's own cultural miasma may not be enough to keep the region from growing more democratic.

A note: More democratic does not mean more friendly to the United States. It simply means more rights and freedoms within the nation. Even if the region does democratize, don't expect them to stop wanting us dead any time soon.

So in conclusion, you're dad is wrong about them, they may in fact democratize, and they have in fact been able to rule themselves in the past. Still, democratization is a messy messy project, and no one should expect it to go smoothly. Look at America's own growing pains. The region is historicly unwilling to accept other cultures and other ways of thinking, but in the modern era, if they hope to survive, they may end up with no choice but to become a more open society.
_______________________
Lewis, Bernard. What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and
Modernity in the Middle East. Harper Collins, New York: 2002.

[Elheru Aran]

I thought the arab states had more than 500 years of self rule under the various Islamic empires in their region. Even under Mohammad.

Actually, they were more or less unified under the Caliphate; even the Shiites in Persia submitted (admittedly nominally) to the Caliph in... Baghdad? well, that's where he was to start off with-- later on the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire assumed the position, I believe, although the Shah of Persia was competition.

While the states were individual, they did submit to the central rule of the Caliphate; he had final authority under Islamic law-- still (technically, mind you) does, in fact; Bin Laden's made reference to the fall of Constantipole, indicating a desire to restore the Caliphate or take revenge for the Britons' rather undue trampling of the Turks.

I'll shut up now before I dig myself into a deeper hole...

[The_Nice_Guy]

There was a long post at the Belmont Club on this very topic, where wretchard airs his doubts about islamic democracy, and that led to a long and involved discussion about the conditions and religious/cultural pitfalls of democracy vis-a-vas islam.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/11 ... dinal.html

A lot of good brain food for thought.

TWG

[Lusankya]

Isn't Turkey a democracy?

Your father's claim was even more ridiculous than the idea that the middle eastern nations cannot have democracy.

"One, thing is for sure is these guys will never be able to govern themselves."

Because yes they damn well can govern themselves. I'm guessing that seeing the guys firing the guns in the air he's mistaking diffenent customs for a lack of sophistication, which is not the case.

I think you went off on the wrong track. Iraq was self-governing before "Operation freedom" and afghanistan was self-governing before america invaded there too. It's not like, say PNG where the government and its law enforcement agencies are ineffective and as a result most parts of Port Moresby are controlled by gangs. whether or not the government in power is the most beneficial to the people is a moot point when talking about the government's effectiveness.

I'm not sure how the artificial democracies in afghanistan and iraq will work out, simply because I'm of the mind that democracy cannot and should not be forced upon people.

[Jason von Evil]

Isn't Jordan a constitutional monarchy and one of the most stable nations in the ME?

Edit: No offense Gren, but your dad sounds like he would make the KKK look like the Peace Corp.

[Master of Ossus]

Point out to your father that such an opinion puts him up their with Hitler and Stalin.

No.

Thats it? " "

What do you expect when you give out moronic advice? A detailed explanation of why it's retarded?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

You must not have read the article EITHER, as we are in 100% erronious agreement.
Tell you dad he's in the company on Mussolini and Hitler. Real fucking smart.

Diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a fasion that he looks forward to the trip.

I doubt if this kid is up to the diplomacy needed to compare his father's idea's to Hitler's, and pull it off without a backhand.

Do you WANT this guy to get smacked, or what?
This shit is far easier to tell someone else to do when you don't have to live with the consequences. After all, it aint YOUR face getting smacked.

But that's OK, because his point was valid.

[ArmorPierce]

Isn't Turkey a democracy?

nitpick, Turkey isn't a Arabic country.

[Stuart Mackey]

No.

Thats it? " "

What do you expect when you give out moronic advice? A detailed explanation of why it's retarded?

And what, pray tell, is retarded about pointing out what is manifestly obvious? perhaps you dont think that the genocide of an entire region is somehow bad? jesus, where did you get your morals? the back of a cereal carton?

[frigidmagi]

And what, pray tell, is retarded about pointing out what is manifestly obvious? perhaps you dont think that the genocide of an entire region is somehow bad? jesus, where did you get your morals? the back of a cereal carton?

No Stuart he thinks it's moronic to tell the kid something that will get him smacked in the mouth if he says it.

[Stuart Mackey]

You must not have read the article EITHER, as we are in 100% erronious agreement.
Tell you dad he's in the company on Mussolini and Hitler. Real fucking smart.

Diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a fasion that he looks forward to the trip.

I doubt if this kid is up to the diplomacy needed to compare his father's idea's to Hitler's, and pull it off without a backhand.

Do you WANT this guy to get smacked, or what?
This shit is far easier to tell someone else to do when you don't have to live with the consequences. After all, it aint YOUR face getting smacked.

But that's OK, because his point was valid.

And where does he say that he lives in an abusive environment?? point it out where he says this? because unless you can your statements are nothing short of an outright lie.

[frigidmagi]

Oh yes, a parent would never smack thier kid for comparing them to Hitler, how silly of me.

[Stuart Mackey]

And what, pray tell, is retarded about pointing out what is manifestly obvious? perhaps you dont think that the genocide of an entire region is somehow bad? jesus, where did you get your morals? the back of a cereal carton?

No Stuart he thinks it's moronic to tell the kid something that will get him smacked in the mouth if he says it.

And where does he say that he lives in an abusive environment? read it again and find where he says that he is going to get smacked around.

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh yes, a parent would never smack thier kid for comparing them to Hitler, how silly of me.

And you know this from being a parent?

[frigidmagi]

And where does he say that he lives in an abusive environment? read it again and find where he says that he is going to get smacked around

And the point sails over your head. Get it straight no one is suggesting he lives in an abusive enviroment or that his father regularly beats him or something. They're suggesting that comparing his father to Hitler is a risksy idea likey to prompt a emotional and phyiscal response. Hence the smack.