I recently had a chance to read this very interesting post dealing with Stephen Browne’s Observations on Arabs. Woody M. at GM’s Corner blog has dissected Browne’s analysis and offered up a few observations and questions. It’s actually quite a good post and I recommend having a look at it. The original post from Stephen Browne may be found here.I’d like to take a more detailed look at Woody’s post as well and maybe add a few things to it. Firstly, I’ll take Browne’s original twelve observations.
They don’t think the same way we do.
Duh. Neither do Chinese, Ugandans, or Aleuts.
When you meet them in just the right circumstances, they are a very likable people.
Which is true of just about anybody. Were I a Saudi or Kenyan or Malaysian and in the United States for the first time, what do you think my opinion would be if I met my first Americans in Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots?
Their values are fundamentally different from ours, their self-esteem is derived from a different source.
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. This is true, but an important point needs to be made here. I’ve seen too many bloggers, authors, and sometimes researchers come to this conclusion, however they take it one step further by throwing out the ethnocentrist point that our values are vastly superior. While on some points, that is demonstrably true, on others it isn’t. Arabs, as a rule, are very family oriented people. While they don’t take it to the levels of Confucian societies, replete with ancestor worship, they are much more devoted to the “good of the family” over the individual, whereas too often in the US, we take rather the opposite view (or at least we talk a good game about family values, but then we dump our parents into nursing homes and our kids into day care). A big part of diplomacy is acknowledging the other guy’s values and point of view. This is just basic common sense. When someone talks down to you, for whatever reason, you naturally feel belittled and insulted. Your opinion of that person is liable to be negative. Intercultural relationships depend on a certain level of mutual understanding and respect. Now I see the objection to this coming from a mile away, “but, but, but well Arabs don’t respect us; I mean they just want to blow us up, rape our women, horses, and camels, then take our country, why should we respect them?” Ah, young grasshopper, it is fortunate that you have come to me, the wise old poet for wisdom and guidance. Respect is a two-way street, yes, but on that street, two wrongs do not make a right, however 3 lefts do. If we learn to give respect, it will at least be the beginning of earning respect. Simply sitting back and calling each other names and saying, “well they did it first,” gets us pretty much the amount of progress that we’ve actually had. Which is to say, none.
Not only can they not build the infrastructure of a modern society, they can’t maintain it either.
Debatable. More and more Arab universities are developing solid engineering, medicine, and science curriculums. The old focus on religion and the liberal arts is now giving way to much more practical programs. While the above may have been true in 1917 with the early leaders of the Arab Revolt, today’s Arab government is much more capable of “keeping the trains running on time.”
They do not think of obligations as running both ways.Â
In certain situations, I agree completely. An Arab will almost always choose to ignore a debt to a non-family member if it goes against the policy of his immediate family or clan. At the same time, there are successful, western-style businesses operating throughout all of the Middle East. They haven’t earned the degree of respect, success, and prominence that they enjoy by simply failing to pay their bills. Many of the CEO’s, lawyers, engineers, etc. have at least a year or so of western university training and understand the idea of “customer relations” and “networking.” Look to the business owners and entrepreneurs to slowly change this observation. I’d almost say that this is exactly backwards. We tend to take the view that Arab terrorists, with their macho talk about confronting the enemy head on, would stand out in the streets, in two-rank line guns leveled, ready for bayonet charges. When they don’t do this, we think of them as hypocrites, for talking a good game about meeting the “enemy” on the battlefield, but then resorting to car bombs, etc. Arabs, on the other hand, tend to view strategic bombing and cruise missiles as cowardly. In their history, battles were usually fought at a very personal level. Eye-to-eye, hand-to-hand. Air forces do not enter the picture, nor (for the most part) do navies. Consider the modern terrorist. Although he resorts to subterfuge and stealth, he is still very much engaging with his enemy on a personal level. Let’s not make the mistake of believing that just because Arabs prefer personalized combat they play by Marquis of Queensbury rules or the preferred rules of the ancient and honorable King’s Tournament. Car bombing, sniping, ambushes, etc. are about as in your face as war can get. It just doesn’t comply with the definition that we have of honorable combat.
In rhetoric, they don’t mean to be taken seriously and they don’t understand when we do.Â
I’d chalk this up to natural Arab fatalism and dramatic flair. One of the absolute hallmarks of Arab culture is the love for poetry and dramatic recital. Poetry, Arab style, tends to be extremely melodramatic, very clear cut (black and white), and prized when it is delivered in a grand, sweeping manner. Arabic, unlike English, is a musical language. Although it shares some harsh sounds with Hebrew, as a rule it flows much more freely than does consonant-heavy English (or German), IMHO. Rhetoric tends to follow the same formula and, as such, is not always meant to be taken at literal face value. It’s the Arab equivalent of some of Arnold or Sly’s more monosyllabic speeches from any of their movies (Rocky I-V, Rambo 1-3, Terminator 1-3, etc.). It’s meant to be stirring and rabble-rousing. It isn’t meant to be nuanced diplomacy. A second point to be raised here is that Arab culture leans toward the East Asian tendency to speak less directly. Broadly proclaiming your central thesis is considered rather rude. One needs to build up to it and dress it in poetic language. Anyone with experience of Japan or China (and their people’s circular conversation patterns) will understand this perfectly.
They don’t place the same value on an abstract conception of Truth as we do, they routinely believe things of breathtaking absurdity.Â
Eh. I’m not altogether that sold on this one. Truth is, after all, in the eye of the beholder. Or, put another way, truth is a three-edged sword. There is one side’s view, then the other side’s view (both of which are “truth”), then, somewhere between the two, is yet another “truth.” Point two about routinely believing things of breathtaking absurdity is applicable to any society. Ever check out the National Enquirer, People magazine, Crossing Over with John Edwards, or the policy platform at the websites of either the Republican or Democratic party websites?
They do not have the same notion of cause and effect as we do.
I have no idea what Stephen Browne is referring to here. Is this a technological, economic, or political statement? Or something else entirely?
We take for granted that we are a dominant civilization still on the way up. They are acutely aware that they are a civilization on the skids.
Do we? I can’t count the number of references to cultural suicide that I’ve seen posted on LGF, JihadWatch, and other Islamophobe websites. Or the never-ending rhetoric about how Western Europe is about to be conquered by the Sharia spouting Muslim horde. As for Arabs being acutely aware that their civilization is on the downslope right now, I’d tend to agree. Although let’s be careful to say that they are on the downslope from a geopolitical standpoint. I would suggest that Arabs are just as confident about their culture as anyone else.Â
We think that everybody has a right to their own point of view, they think that that idea is not only self-evidently absurd, but evil.
This goes back to the idea of the family and/or clan being of greater import than the individual. This view, while absolutely true of Arabs, is also quite true of East and South Asians, Africans, and, to a lesser extent, South Americans. It seems not to have hindered them, so while I disagree with this idea of submerging the individual’s beliefs in favor of the clan’s, I don’t find it to be necessarily culturally crippling.
Our civilization is destroying theirs. We cannot share a world in peace. They understand this; we have yet to learn it.
Now this is just classic Samuel P. Huntington/Bernard Lewis melodrama. The “Clash of Civilizations” only exists while we allow it to. Arabs are no more naturally genocidal than any other race. They do not inherently wish to annihilate the West anymore than we (at least most of us) want to annihilate them. Yes, many Arabs do feel threatened by the pervasive influence of Western culture and values that they feel are antithetical to their society. This is also a view shared by East Asians, South Asians, and anti-American Europeans. I don’t see anyone pushing the idea of a “Clash of Civilizations” between the West and, say, Japan or Korea or, honestly, even China (which is seen as an ideological foe, not a “cultural” one). The key here is more cultural outreach and exchange, not tougher rhetoric (see point 7). If a lesson needs to be learned here, it’s that supporting corrupt totalitarian dictators just because they are “pro-Western” is a policy guaranteed to alienate and incite the Arab peoples against us. Peaceful co-existence is absolutely possible. The means of achieving it don’t involve cruise missiles and cluster bombs. Rather, they involve engaging the Arab peoples on a cultural level and acknowledging the mistakes that we have made in the past (mostly the Cold War-era) and listening, really listening to their grievances today. They aren’t going to take the first step toward reconciliation here. It’s up to us. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for abandoning the ongoing fight against terrorism or continuing to protect our own homes. I think that security on the homefront is crucial (and sadly neglected), but continuing to escalate the conflict with the Arab people is idiocy of the highest order. It’s self-defeating and does nothing but reinforce their suspicions (hammered into them daily by terrorist propagandists) that the West wants nothing more than genocide. The absolute death of all things Arab. Until we start showing real signs of striving to co-exist (not just impose our views of how a country should be run), expect continued hostility and suspicion from the Arab world.
Browne’s final conclusion, shared by Woody (although he regrets coming to the same conclusion), is this
“I came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization.”
Yeah, that works. Let’s just carpet-bomb Riyadh, Cairo, and Damascus. This strategy basically boils down to Americans becoming what the rest of the world portrays us as, “Hoooeeey, Billy Joe, let’s kill us some more of them thar camel jockeys. Tell them boys back home to send us more B-52′s. That’ll learn ‘em.” Indeed.
Careful Omar,
Many are of the opinion in certain quarters that we are in favor of neo-con gunslinging across the world here. I mean, what are Michael and I going to do with our portable genocide machines if you keep this up?
No big deal. Mine’s in the shop (it’s a Diebold).
I’m glad you happened across GM’s corner of the blogosphere. Your blog and GM’s are well-written and thoughtful, and I benefit from reading both.
Omar, decent and well thought out post. In general, you find me agreeing with each point that you make. I would also point out, that perhas Browne was speaking in general of the Arab (and to some degree the Persian) exemplified by the islamo-fascist. I have employed a muslim counselors in the past and found her to be an exceptional counselor with a real feeling for the emotional anguish of the client(s) that we deal with in the psycho-therapy profession. Having said that, I’ve also met with and developed a fairly quick dislike for some rather arrogant and unfriendly Muslims/Arabs (and other nationalities as well if that needs to be said).
I take issue with only one section so far (and totally off the top of my head). From your analysis:
There is a very real case for having islamo-fascist-phobia in the west, as the IFs have shown themselves to be totally opposed to western culture which they see as sinful and degrading. They truly do wish to supplant much law with their own laws based on the Koran (Sharia) as evidenced by the recent brouhaha in Canada and the demands in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Too, the IFs absolutely wish to eliminate both Israel as a geopolitical force and the Jews as a people and have dedicated much of their planning to this end. (and this long predates any Israeli occupation of the West Bank or Gaza). Again, when it comes to the islamo-fascist, a healthy dose of phobia (and it isn’t a totally irrational fear of these people – they have bombed trains, busses and flown planes into buildings) can and perhaps should be borne by the west.
A good post. Thanks.
Having said that, I don’t agree with your conclusions. For instance, I believe that many Americans view the US as militarily but not culturally dominant, which places us in the interesting position of having to reach out in peace no matter how violent our attackers may be. The more they attack us, the more understanding we are expected to be (e.g., like this).
GM, that’s a good point, but the subtleties are lost on the American audience trained to view things at surface level and in black-and-white contrast. The Islamist or Islamofascist are indeed people to be feared, or rather confronted, but they should not be confused with Islam or Muslims as a whole. Islam, as you seem to know very well, is no more a monolithic entity than is Christianity or “the West.” In discussions related to Islamofascists or Islamists, often the lines blur and the topic becomes simply, “Islam.”
Ah, but here is the root of the problem with the ongoing siege mentality which has developed concerning Muslims in Europe. The actual immigrants in Holland, Britain, France, Germany, etc. are of different ethnicities, nationalities, and cultures. In France, we have primarily Algerian and Moroccan Northwest Africans who are descended from (or are themselves) witnesses to the brutal anti-colonial wars in the very recent past. The anti-French feelings which developed have not only lingered, but grown in the children. I see the problem there as being anti-French/anti-colonialist revolution, not imposition of Sharia.
In Britain, OTOH, we have mainly Pakistani and Indian Muslims, with a smattering of Persians, Iraqis, Egyptians, and, for lack of a better term, Palestinians. These folks are from hardcore fundamentalist backgrounds and are not particularly interested in integrating into British society. That is an issue of Sharia and its implementation.
Still a third area of concern is Germany. Muslim immigrants to Germany are primarily Turkish in origin and most immigrated in the 1970′s-1980′s as a cheap labor pool for the Germans. Although I suspect that Turkish have no desire to put on liederhosen and eat sauerkraut, they are also, IMHO, equally disinterested in imposing Sharia law. Turkey has been a highly secular nation since approximately the end of the First World War. Sharia takes a backseat to the demands of civil law. Why would Turkish immigrants desire to impose a system which is alien to them?
Omar,
I think your breakdown is mostly correct, though I think that wile the basis for Muslim anger may be anti-colonialism in France, it has moved beyond that in the banlieu’s. I also think the statist economy deprives immigrants in general, but particularly North Africans, much of an opportunity in France as well. Still, the rise of the radical Islamist in France is real.
It also doesn’t take a large population of Islamist’s to be a grave threat. Amongst the non Turkish population in Germany there are some severe issues.
Omar, I appreciate the comment on my comment. Your statement: but the subtleties are lost on the American audience trained to view things at surface level and in black-and-white contrast.” Reminds me of a department chair I once had at the College that I taught at. He was a wild eyed, radical liberal but having said that, he did have an idea or two that was fairly decent. One of them:
Lol, GM! That may in fact be the only viable strategy.
Lance, good points about the French situation. Their economy is stagnant and they definitely are inclined toward bias against immigrants in the hiring process. By this point, after decades of simply hating the French, the North African immigrants have simply let the hatred manifest itself as physical violence. There are no doubt some Islamists amongst them cheering their revolution (or, at this stage insurrection) on, pushing for them to accept a platform of imposing Sharia and turning France into an Islamic state. This is probably not a hard sell, as they can’t stand the French, the rest of Europe is circling the wagons to oppose the Muslim community, and the Islamists are preaching to them daily about how great the world was when they were ruled by a Caliph. Of course that was over 500 years ago in the case of Algeria (which, if I remember was last ruled by the Hafsid dynasty [whose ruler used the title Caliph]). After that they were an Ottoman protectorate, then the French moved in around 1830ish.
DRJ, I somewhat agree with you regarding the attitudes of the left and its views of appropriate military force. In fact, McQ of QandO posted a pretty good review of what the military is for and how it should be used . The problem lies not so much in the attitudes of the left, but in clearly defining the scope of the military’s mission when it is felt that military force must be used. If given a tightly defined objective, then given the support to used all of their available arsenal, the left cannot really interfere too much (other than street theater protests and the occasional NY Times ad).
Culturally, the US is the most dominant nation in the world, bar none. Aspects of our culture have infiltrated and become staples of just about every country in the world. Coke, blue jeans, hair styles, movies, TV shows, etc. are all hugely popular around the world.We can’t honestly say that about other nations’ cultures doing the same to us. Heck, even Chinese and Mexican restaurants have had their menus altered to suit American tastes. When was the last time any of us donned native dress from our ancestors’ homelands and went to a job-related meeting?
When was the last time any of us donned native dress from our ancestors’ homelands and went to a job-related meeting?
The last thing the world needs is me in a pair of lederhosen, so let’s just not go there.
Achillea,
Oh no, I want a picture of that! I am posting it. In fact, I want as many people in ridiculous native wear as possible to e-mail them to me. I’ll put together a photo album. Maybe I can capture that picture of Dale Franks on the boogie board to boot.
Omar,
I appreciate that we somewhat agree but I think that’s actually a gracious way of saying we don’t agree … and I’m not sure we do.
First, good luck on tailoring military objectives so no one can reasonably disagree. It’s clear that yesterday’s extremists are today’s mainstream. In addition, I agree the US has a dominant military but no matter how carefully you refine the mission, it’s never going to work with the precision of a fine Swiss watch. In an institution like the military, it’s more SNAFU than Swiss.
Second, I think American culture is better described as pervasiave, not dominant. America is like Kleenex, Jello, and Walmart – it exports generic culture. I think it is more accurate to say other nations absorb Anerican culture rather than yield to it.
Oh, I don’t entertain the notion that no one will disagree. I just believe that with highly specific objectives that don’t leave the military high and dry holding their guns wondering what to do next, leftists can’t rise up and begin the chants of “quagmire, quagmire.”
Referring to whom or what, specifically? Amongst lefties? Absolutely. We have Castroites and openly declared socialists serving in the United States Congress. And no one questions this. Sad. Very sad.
Eh, I suppose you’re right, but if we would stop giving the military vague objectives that amount to biting off more than they can chew, they would be able to minimize the screw-ups. Small, bite-size objectives give the professionals the opportunity to demonstrate precision. At this point, I lean towards the McQ doctrine which says that at least 50% or so of our military needs to be rapidly deployable Special Forces type units. [McQ, please correct me if I have misunderstood your ideas.]
Now here, I may stand corrected. Other nations do certainly absorb American culture, yet retain a good bit of their own flavor. The problem, from their point of view, however is that their children are growing up bombarded by American culture (movies, jeans, Jello, etc.) and are demanding more and more of it. This doesn’t exactly pave the way for a traditionalist vision of the future for them. This is where we start to have problems. Parents don’t want their kids turning into Britney Spers and K-Fed. They want them to be good little Malaysians, Ugandans, Brazilians, whatever. On the other hand, no foreign culture is in any way a threat to the US. We absorb everything that comes our way. They do not have the sort of influence over us that we have over them. And that is very frightening to a lot of the world. It’s part of the reason that I support much, much more cultural exchange and sending US students abroad. Until we are at least educated about other nations’ cultures, we have no chance of ever understanding their concerns.
Omar,
Is it possible that America’s relentless cultural exchange contributes to the alienation you describe? In other words, the more some people are inundated with American products and culture, the more they push back to preserve their own cultures – especially the young who may actually be less flexible than their assimilating parents.
I don’t think America should embrace isolationism – that’s foolish and impossible – but I’m not convinced that assimilation or coexistence through increasingly passionate cultural exchange/dialogue is the answer. There has to be a reciprocal desire to assimilate or coexist. Absent that, I think it takes a carrot and a stick. Maybe that’s your point and, if so, we agree. My point is that Americans should realize by now that carrots alone don’t work.
Omar,
On the military issues, it would be comforting to think of the American military as a world-wide version of a local SWAT team. However, I think future conflicts will be even more challenging as technology changes the battlefield and the combatants. Thus, the American military will probably be given even more nebulous and challenging assignments in the future.
Ultimately, all that stands between “us” and “them” is our military. In your scenario, battles would essentially be micromanaged by civilian authorities as targeted assignments that minimize unwanted propaganda effects. I’m not sure I see the overall benefits from a propaganda-driven approach or that I want to reduce American military commanders to the status of SWAT team leaders.
As we saw in Vietnam and now again in Iraq, propaganda and the media are obviously important. That doesn’t mean we are incapable of counteracting propaganda with actions and facts. Just because some may call it a quagmire doesn’t make it one. IMHO the answer is not to go underground with precise objectives but to illuminate our goals through public information.
Pingback: Cheb Khaled
I found this video about A Second Hand Conjecture » The One About Arabs quite different than ones that I found before. Do you have any more? Thanks