RSS
Indonesia is a pretty unlikely democratic success story, but the giant, heavily Muslim southeast Asian country managed to have a peaceful presidential election recently. Some pointers from the NYT:
A central reason for Indonesia’s success is that, unlike in Thailand, post-Suharto civilian leaders in Indonesia sidelined the armed forces from politics. Lawmakers passed constitutional amendments that stripped the military of its reserved bloc of seats in the House of Representatives and ushered in direct elections, from president all the way down to mayor.
Serving military officers were barred from government posts and political party activities, and ultimately, Indonesia’s armed forces were forced to sell off their commercial business interests.
A pretty common pattern, seen in Kemalist Turkey and now, especially, in Nasserite Egypt, is that what I call “Bonapartist” militaries, modernizing militaries in backward countries that offer “careers open to talent,” eventually end up owning huge chunks of the economy. You recruit bright boys to the military academies and teach them modern management techniques, but they wind up without all that much to do since modern warfare is too hideous to contemplate. So, they end up owning much of the business in the country. That’s a real problem in getting the Egyptian army to go back to the barracks since they have so many economic interests to defend (with guns, if need be).
China used to be like that. I remember a story from a generation ago about a fire in a disco in China killing hundreds. The reporter mentioned that the number of patrons in the disco far exceeded the fire safety capacity, but lowly fire inspectors wouldn’t dare cite a disco, since all the discos in China were owned by the People’s Liberation Army, and they have artillery. But rapid economic growth has helped China get out of this corner.
… Another crucial democratic advance for Indonesia, experts say, was its bold move to regional autonomy across the far-flung archipelago a year after Suharto’s resignation in May 1998. That decentralization of power broke Jakarta’s political monopoly and prevented the emergence of a new, dominant national political force. …
It also gave smaller political groups a way to survive even if they failed to win a national election. “Forces that lose out in the center can still hold power in provinces and districts, making them accept the outcome of political contests,” Mr. Mietzner said.
The legend is that during the 1994 vote-counting in South Africa, Mandela simply assigned the Cape to the white party and Natal to the Zulu party so that their leaders would have jobs and a stake in his system.
Beyond the jobs for the boys aspect, federalism is suited to diverse countries. In general, if you have a lot of diversity, like Indonesia or Switzerland has, you should have a lot of decentralization of power, as in old federalist America. In contrast, England and France are centralized states that have molded their elites to be culturally homogeneous (e.g., by the use of boarding schools in England such as Eton and Harrow) and thus suited to central rule.
The U.S. has increasing diversity, at least in Census counts, and increasing centralization. The political system that combination seems best suited for is empire (e.g., after Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, the Roman Republic was history).
“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
A republic can never be kept, at least not forever, because of the cycle of regimes. Modernity thinks it has overcome this, but it hasn’t.
Add to that “natural and ordinary necessity” the worst effects of corrosive late modernity plus mass third world immigration, and the republic is clearly doomed.
Pat Buchanan wrote a book about that back in 2002.
Indonesia’s decentralization works because the nation is regionally diverse – ethnic/faith groups tend to predominate in each one (or more) of its archipelago’s various regions and islands. This no longer works in the U.S. because the diversity is dispersed throughout the nation – the diversity is not regional (it once was, but not since WWII and the postwar period tended to distribute diverse elements throughout the population); of course this is decreasingly true in the U.S. southwest where the La Raza-tino young now predominate in schools, in reverse of the diminishing White majority in the rest of the U.S.
the generals didn’t end up owning huge chunks of the economy because all the smart kids signed up, they did it because the nasserite-esque parties were socialist, sometimes explicitly so, and they nationalized big chunks of the economy to either “use scientific central planning to run things more efficiently” or, since that excuse has lost a little steam “to keep the capitalist merchants of death from profiting off of war.” Of course, it doesn’t work, the state run industries are invariably super inefficient, but the jobs and patronage they represent makes them politically untouchable while the corruption the system engenders kills the rest of the economy.
OTOH – Thailand may have endless troubles with its military but its economy is much more successful than Indonesia (GDP PPP twice in Thailand than in Indonesia). The decentralization policy in Indonesia has created many barriers to development, and actually caused more investment to be focused on Jakarta and other major established cities (where the decision makers are more sophisticated and linked to national goals). Indonesia also struggles with major corruption in the regions, although the new administration is potential going to tackle this with more force than the old one. And as to military links, SBY, the outgoing president, is a former general and the second placed candidate for the president was also a general with a particularly dodgy background.
Steve, I wish you didn’t get your info about foreign lands from the NYT. I don’t know anything about Indonesia, but I noticed many years ago that the NYT lies about the countries I do know about approximately as much as it lies about America. I suspect that you wouldn’t want people from other countries to form their impressions of America from reading the NYT’s coverage of it.
The underlying assumption of the bits of the NYT article that you quoted is that Indonesia has become more democratic. That’s usually a very bad sign. “May your country undergo such changes that the NYT judges it to have become more democratic” would be a sick, sadistic thing to wish on anyone.
Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, which is why I was surprised when my father’s German American Infidel poker buddy ended up marrying an Indonesian woman he met online.
Unless a lot of Indonesians are Muslim In Name Only, similar to how many Irish American SWPL types are Catholic In Name Only.
I saw a picture of his Indonesian wife and she has a Filipina looking phenotype.
You’ve spoken before of Russian support for Tsarism/Caesarism. I get the impression that most Americans seem to broadly support highly centralised Empire if (a) it’s not called that and (b) they retain certain legal rights, eg gun-carry in some States. Demands for the restoration of the Constitution with its strong States’ Rights seems minimal/fringe, though. The one time I’ve seen Movement Conservatives talk about State Rights was Hurricane Katrina, telling me why GW Bush was right not to do anything to help New Orleans for so long – it would have been an infringement of Louisiana’s Constitutional autonomy. (Actually FEMA did do stuff, mostly creating a blockade to stop private parties helping the stricken city).
The new Indonesian president, Joko Widodo, is a metalhead. He’s a fan of bands like Metallica and Napalm Death. Google him and you’ll find him showing metal horns and wearing a Napalm Death T-shirt.
Indonesia, unlike neighboring Malaysia, has also assimilated and accepted their Chinese minority, unlike neighboring Malaysia. Indonesian Chinese speak Indonesian at home (and often don’t know Chinese), give their kids Indonesian names, and generally don’t try to emigrate elsewhere at the first possible opportunity, unlike their Chinese Malaysian neighbors. Some of this is probably because the Indonesian government hasn’t gone the “affirmative action on steroids for Muslims” route that Malaysia did.
: Nothing surprising about that. The people from Marocco to Afghanistan seem to show specific behavioral traits, like fanaticism, low affect control, impulsive emotions and so on. Those are not even linked to low IQ and Islam as similar behavior does not exist to that degree in Sub-Saharan Africans, Australian Aborigenes or Muslim South-East Asian. And the old reports speak of behavior like that even before Islam. It is possible that Islam is by itself more like a social control, not an evil by itself. There seem to be certain genes responsible for all this but an Islamic system may even further promote their spreading by selecting for them. Indonesians are only superficially Islamized, by itself it does not fit their nature (even Turks do not show the same degree as Arabs).
And while Turks may seem sedate compared to Arabs today, for most of Islamic history, they were the ultimate crazies. Arab imperialism itself pretty much stopped after Poitiers (in the West) and the conquest of Persia in the East; i.e., by the 8th century (yes, I know there were Moorish corsairs in the Mediterranean, but that was disorganized piracy, not imperialism.) From the 10th century onwards, it was the Central Asian steppe nomads (mostly the Turks, but Mongols too) who kept invading their settle neighbors and committing barbaric acts. Pretty much all the Islamic Invasions of India were by Turks (with Afghan soldiers); Byzantium was conquered and colonized by Turks, not Arabs. Timur/Tamerlane, a particularly brutal campaigner, was a Turk. Etcetera.
As for Persians vs Arabs, I think the former would make better friends than the latter, and it's in America's interests to kiss and make up with the Mullahs in Tehran. If you want a fight, pick one with the Saudis, who are the ultimate benefactors of every bunch of Islamic crazies now roaming the planet.Replies: @Bliss, @gu
Indonesia is witnessing an Islamic religious revival like practically everywhere else and it is generally unwise to live amongst them. To help you parse the writing between the lines, when the likes of the NYT says Indonesian is becoming more “Democratic” what it actually means that the country is on the threshold of coming under Sharia law.
That being said, Indonesians like their Philippine (hence the resemblance) and Malaysian cousins are all ethnically malay-austronesian and thus less head chopping crazy when it comes to enforcing female endogamy like their Arab and Pashtun coreligionists.
Women from their racial/culture cluster can “slut it up” as it were to a degree without expecting to be murdered by their families like in the middle east. Otherwise they do take their religion seriously and you can expect the general levels of aggression waged against infidels who have the misfortune of living with them.
Ironically, if you are looking for a Muslim country with a low quotient of wild eyed bearded crazies then you actually have to go to the first contemporary Islamic state, Iran. Outside of the state religious enforcers, the population is pretty mellow as far as Muslims are concerned. I suspect it is a combination of three factors: being Shia rather than Sunni, being Persian rather than Arab, and actually having spent two generations under a state theocracy so that everyone has had time to become disillusioned with it. Counter-intuitively, this is also why it is such a poor idea for the American/Saudi/Israeli block to work so hard for the overthrow of the Iranian regime. An obvious external enemy gives legitimacy to the current Iranian government as defenders of the nation and more critically, a preterm externally backed “counter”-revolution could have terrible consequences that could derail the future development of the Iranian people. It is much better to just leave them alone and let nature run its course until the Iranians themselves lose all enthusiasm and respect for the Ayatollahs.
meep, you have it completely the other way around. The Indonesian Chinese are assimilated because of the anti-Chinese measures enacted in 1965 when the military brutally quashed a Peking-backed communist coup with possibly a half-million Chinese killed. Following this Chinese language schools were banned, there was strong compulsion to adopt Indonesian-sounding names, displaying of Chinese characters in signs were banned,…all of which probably killed of any distinctive Indonesian Chinese culture. For all its sins, in Malaysia the Chinese have been relatively free to practise their culture.
Additionally, the Indonesian Chinese make up less than 5% of the general population while the Chinese form 30% of population in Malaysia, hence they are less assimilated as they form a self-sustaining cultural bloc. Speaking as a half-Malaysian Chinese (with a Malaysian Chinese wife), I would prefer it that the Malaysian Chinese assimilated themselves better before it is forced down our throats. Unfortunately, recent trends in Malaysia, in particular the creeping Islamicization of politics and the spillover into official and social life has put a brake on things.
Crossing from Indonesia to Malaysia is to travel from the Third World to a near First World country. Parts of Malaysia (the Chinese parts) are rather like "Singapore on the cheap" as a relative of mine once described.
The English were magnificent colonizers.
Filipinos and Indonesians are of the same Malay phenotype: about 75 % Mongoloid and 25% Australoid, although the Filipinos probably have a little bit of Caucasoid in the mix from the Spanish and American occupations.
“Indonesia … has also assimilated and accepted their Chinese minority: I’m old enough to remember when they slaughtered them by the million.
Except that during the last great economic crisis (which in Indonesia was in 1998) there were huge pogroms against the Chinese. Which was still relatively easy on the Chinese considering the last great pogroms which happened in the 60s and killed thousands or maybe even tens of thousands of them. (Although the 1960s pogroms were dwarfed by the killing of hundreds of thousands and possibly even millions of Indonesian leftists.)
I live in a city. Fairly big and cosmopolitan. I thought I knew the city after living for 20 some years . But the city keeps on building and expanding. I can’t remember what was standing before in a particular area despite seein it everyday for 20 yrs after a new building was built in its place .
This story was told by a Londoner in 50 s . He w trying to explain the inability to understand our past politics,cultures,societal rules and conventions from the perspective of the present .
He extended it further . He referred to the knee jerk assumptions we made about other countries and societies again by looking through our current optics and ignoring the developmental aspects . When the verdict is given, it is given with the explanations that again are in vogue at that particular period . Suddenly IQ ,gene,and traits are making inroads after failing to establish the combinations as rational method to understand collective human behaviors in 19 th century.
The good thing about Indonesia is that the election took place again and the power transferred from one entity to another. By itself it is remarkable .
To whatever extent Indonesia is democratizing, I wouldn’t say it was because of Islam. Maybe IN SPITE of it, but hardly because of it. Go to FREEDOM HOUSE. Very few muslim countries are democracies, even in the loosest sense of the word. No Arab country has EVER been a democracy.
“Ironically, if you are looking for a Muslim country with a low quotient of wild eyed bearded crazies then you actually have to go to the first contemporary Islamic state, Iran. Outside of the state religious enforcers, the population is pretty mellow as far as Muslims are concerned. ”
You have to be on crack if you think Iranians are the most peaceful moderate non violent Muslims in the world.
Women for example are still stoned to death in Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/world/meast/iran-stoning/
Iran has plenty of wild eyed bearded crazies.
Iran is not a civilized society by Western standards.
It's killed far fewer human beings than the United States during take your pick of a period.
For those who might not recall, Indonesia was under a Western arms embargo from 1999 to 2005,
for brutal unpleasentness against East Timor (the old Portuguese part of the place, as opposed to Dutch):
“Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor was marked by violence and brutality. A detailed statistical report prepared for the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor cited a minimum bound of 102,800 conflict-related deaths in the period 1974–1999… the East Timorese guerrilla force, Falintil, fought a campaign against the Indonesian forces from 1975 to 1999.”
Ultimately Australia basically had to invade East Timor (wrapped in a UN flag):
“…Prime Minister Gusmão also faced gunfire separately but escaped unharmed. Australian reinforcements were immediately sent to help keep order. …”
Indonesia was Hindu before it became Muslim. Even today, there’s a significant Hindu minority in the country; I believe some regions/islands are wholly Hindu. Most of South-East Asia (Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Malaysia) were Hindu or Buddhist or a mix of the two until the spread of Islam. That older religious heritage might explain why the people there are not as fanatic as their Middle-Eastern co-religionists.
It's because they are farther from Palestine.
Indonesian Islam has been influenced strongly by Sufism, which is unorthodox, mystical, and fairly tolerant of pre-Islamic religions and cultures especially when contrasted with the "desert Bedouin purity" of modern Salafists.
Arab radicalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Well, there’s been some radicalism in the desert since Wahhab started preaching in the 18th century, but that remained in the desert until WWI.
And while Turks may seem sedate compared to Arabs today, for most of Islamic history, they were the ultimate crazies. Arab imperialism itself pretty much stopped after Poitiers (in the West) and the conquest of Persia in the East; i.e., by the 8th century (yes, I know there were Moorish corsairs in the Mediterranean, but that was disorganized piracy, not imperialism.) From the 10th century onwards, it was the Central Asian steppe nomads (mostly the Turks, but Mongols too) who kept invading their settle neighbors and committing barbaric acts. Pretty much all the Islamic Invasions of India were by Turks (with Afghan soldiers); Byzantium was conquered and colonized by Turks, not Arabs. Timur/Tamerlane, a particularly brutal campaigner, was a Turk. Etcetera.
As for Persians vs Arabs, I think the former would make better friends than the latter, and it’s in America’s interests to kiss and make up with the Mullahs in Tehran. If you want a fight, pick one with the Saudis, who are the ultimate benefactors of every bunch of Islamic crazies now roaming the planet.
By the way, stoning to death is taught in the Bible itself. Jesus, to his credit rejected, this Old Testament practice.
Tamerlane a Turk?
Just because he is Turkic doesn't mean he was a Turk. He waged war against Turks.
Mughals also weren't Turks the way we know them.
Ottomans did what Alexander and Genghis Khan were famous for: conquer. Only because of Islam it seems to be "barbaric" to you.Replies: @Numinous, @Twinkie
That older religious heritage might explain why the people there are not as fanatic as their Middle-Eastern co-religionists.
It’s because they are farther from Palestine.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/world/meast/iran-stoning/Iran has plenty of wild eyed bearded crazies.Iran is not a civilized society by Western standards.Replies: @Anonymous, @Twinkie
Iran is not a civilized society by Western standards.
It’s killed far fewer human beings than the United States during take your pick of a period.
The Buddhist Srivijaya empire was an influential sea-faring empire for awhile, based in Indonesia. Srivijaya was a thalassocracy (like Aragon) largely an empire of scattered port cities united by its fleet. Because of this it apparently played an important role in the spread of Buddhism.
Srivijaya was one of those “lost civilizations” until a huge Buddhist temple complex was discovered at Borobudur: “Evidence suggests Borobudur was constructed in the 9th century and abandoned following the 14th-century decline of Hindu kingdoms in Java and the Javanese conversion to Islam.”
Among things relevant to archaeologists is the detailed carving of a ship,
the Borobudar ship. (Replicas have been constructed.)
Srivijaya ships traded as far as Africa and apparently colonized the island of Madagascar off the coast of Africa:
“The Srivijayan empire mainly exercised its influence around coastal areas of Southeast Asia, with the exception of contributing to the population of Madagascar 3,300 miles (8,000 kilometres) to the west. …
…The migration to Madagascar was estimated took place 1200 years ago around 830 CE. According to… mitochondrial DNA study, native Malagasy people… can likely trace their heritage back to the 30 founding mothers sailed from Indonesia 1200 years ago…
…loan words from Sanskrit, all with local linguistic modifications via Javanese or Malay, hint that Madagascar… colonized by settlers from the Srivijaya empire. At that time the Srivijayan maritime empire was expanding their maritime trade network.”
http://youtu.be/WIKqgE4BwAY
What cultural meltdown looks like.
That being said, Indonesians like their Philippine (hence the resemblance) and Malaysian cousins are all ethnically malay-austronesian and thus less head chopping crazy when it comes to enforcing female endogamy like their Arab and Pashtun coreligionists.
Women from their racial/culture cluster can "slut it up" as it were to a degree without expecting to be murdered by their families like in the middle east. Otherwise they do take their religion seriously and you can expect the general levels of aggression waged against infidels who have the misfortune of living with them.
Ironically, if you are looking for a Muslim country with a low quotient of wild eyed bearded crazies then you actually have to go to the first contemporary Islamic state, Iran. Outside of the state religious enforcers, the population is pretty mellow as far as Muslims are concerned. I suspect it is a combination of three factors: being Shia rather than Sunni, being Persian rather than Arab, and actually having spent two generations under a state theocracy so that everyone has had time to become disillusioned with it. Counter-intuitively, this is also why it is such a poor idea for the American/Saudi/Israeli block to work so hard for the overthrow of the Iranian regime. An obvious external enemy gives legitimacy to the current Iranian government as defenders of the nation and more critically, a preterm externally backed "counter"-revolution could have terrible consequences that could derail the future development of the Iranian people. It is much better to just leave them alone and let nature run its course until the Iranians themselves lose all enthusiasm and respect for the Ayatollahs.Replies: @AlexT
Duke of Qin! It’s been ages since i’ve seen you anywhere! Are you restarting your blog?
“Arab radicalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Well, there’s been some radicalism in the desert since Wahhab started preaching in the 18th century, but that remained in the desert until WWI.”
I disagree. There are reports that go back centuries, from travellers.
Also with impulsive behavior with low self-control, egocentrism, tendency towards violence… This was probably there even before Islam, but Islam may have strengthened all that because people with that sort of behavior have more success in an Islamic society.
Arab countries have very low rates of street crime, which is not indicative of low self-control. Violence is the result of terrorism, which involves the ability to remain disciplined, organize, plan, etc.Replies: @Twinkie
I disagree. There are reports that go back centuries, from travellers.
Also with impulsive behavior with low self-control, egocentrism, tendency towards violence… This was probably there even before Islam, but Islam may have strengthened all that because people with that sort of behavior have more success in an Islamic society such genes like that spread faster.
"Arab radicalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Well, there’s been some radicalism in the desert since Wahhab started preaching in the 18th century, but that remained in the desert until WWI."
I disagree. There are reports that go back centuries, from travellers.
Also with impulsive behavior with low self-control, egocentrism, tendency towards violence... This was probably there even before Islam, but Islam may have strengthened all that because people with that sort of behavior have more success in an Islamic society.Replies: @KA, @Hepp
Bush,Cheney and a few of the ilk the past and the present should have migrated to Indonesia or Morocco . May be the Spainsh /Dutch/ Pilgrim colonizers should have done as well. They did not try that religious route for it was not violent enough for them .
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html Corruption
destroys democracy everywhere . Some of the ring leaders wear hat pf the nationalism ,some of them religious ,and few other in modern days wear transnational universal democratic hat .
Indonesia ( and India) is unique in wearing all three . America is getting there embracing all three .
Every paper slants its coverage to please its paymasters–sometimes consciously, sometimes not. I read the NYT, the Guardian, the Telegraph, and Der Spiegel (English). More suggestions could no doubt be made. Read as many sources as you can, and you won’t get the truth, but you’ll get closer to it.
Indian warriors mostly from S India established maritime trades and outposts of kingdoms that encompassed an area bigger than US stretching from Maldives to S Vietnam . The Chola ,the Chalukhya ,and numerous others from Bengal and Orissa took part in these empire buildings in 7 to 13 centuries with usual blood shed ,destruction,looting,and reciprocal destruction of the temples . The God King concept was the philioshy that underpinned the narrative to maintain the control over the local populations .
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/world/meast/iran-stoning/Iran has plenty of wild eyed bearded crazies.Iran is not a civilized society by Western standards.Replies: @Anonymous, @Twinkie
Yes, indeed. And they control the levers of power.
This, though, is not quite true. Most Iranians are quite put off by their rulers. And Iran does boast a very ancient and flourishing civilization. Unlike the Arabs who had a hybrid semi-nomadic and town merchant culture and whose religion, therefore, reflect this culture, ancient and medieval Iranians boasted of large, populated, and well-constructed cities.
Additionally, the Indonesian Chinese make up less than 5% of the general population while the Chinese form 30% of population in Malaysia, hence they are less assimilated as they form a self-sustaining cultural bloc. Speaking as a half-Malaysian Chinese (with a Malaysian Chinese wife), I would prefer it that the Malaysian Chinese assimilated themselves better before it is forced down our throats. Unfortunately, recent trends in Malaysia, in particular the creeping Islamicization of politics and the spillover into official and social life has put a brake on things.Replies: @Twinkie
Both that demographic difference and the fact that Indonesia was ruled by the Dutch while Malaysia was ruled by the English can be seen in the comparative development levels of the two countries.
Crossing from Indonesia to Malaysia is to travel from the Third World to a near First World country. Parts of Malaysia (the Chinese parts) are rather like “Singapore on the cheap” as a relative of mine once described.
The English were magnificent colonizers.
“It’s killed far fewer human beings than the United States during take your pick of a period.”
Answer this question, is it legal in The United States to stone a woman to death who is suspected of adultery ? Is it legal to stone someone to death in the U.S for being a Homosexual ?
Also don’t you think it is extremely hypocritical of the Iranian government to give men who commit adultery a pass ?
The popular vacation destination of Bali in Indonesia is mostly Hindu. The Balinese are famously docile and welcoming of outsiders. They do harbor some resentment toward the Javanese whom they see as colonizers and not very benevolent ones at that. The Balinese would be perfectly happy to be an independent country. There is no chance the central government would let this happen, of course.
Indonesian Islam has been influenced strongly by Sufism, which is unorthodox, mystical, and fairly tolerant of pre-Islamic religions and cultures especially when contrasted with the “desert Bedouin purity” of modern Salafists.
“Arab radicalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Well, there’s been some radicalism in the desert since Wahhab started preaching in the 18th century, but that remained in the desert until WWI.”
I don’t know if you would personally consider, in 732 AD, the muslims defeating Spain, then attempting to overrun western europe, hopefully to kill it’s leaders, and convert it’s people to Islam to be considered radical, but it certainly wasn’t very nice.
“Most Iranians are quite put off by their rulers.”
Than why do the Iranian people continue to vote Islamic extremists into power ? Why don’t they vote for moderate peaceful Muslims into power ?
While it's true that the Iranian electoral system is far more democratic than those found in other repressive countries (formerly in Libya and Iraq and today in North Korea which were/are all showcase elections), the overall system is Iran is still structured to give much power to the entrenched theocrats.
Truly reform-oriented figures never make it to the elections in the first place. But at least there is some competition within the narrow confines allowed by the power-that-be.
Than why do the Iranian people continue to vote Islamic extremists into power ? Why don't they vote for moderate peaceful Muslims into power ?Replies: @Twinkie
You think elections in Iran are open and fair?
While it’s true that the Iranian electoral system is far more democratic than those found in other repressive countries (formerly in Libya and Iraq and today in North Korea which were/are all showcase elections), the overall system is Iran is still structured to give much power to the entrenched theocrats.
Truly reform-oriented figures never make it to the elections in the first place. But at least there is some competition within the narrow confines allowed by the power-that-be.
And while Turks may seem sedate compared to Arabs today, for most of Islamic history, they were the ultimate crazies. Arab imperialism itself pretty much stopped after Poitiers (in the West) and the conquest of Persia in the East; i.e., by the 8th century (yes, I know there were Moorish corsairs in the Mediterranean, but that was disorganized piracy, not imperialism.) From the 10th century onwards, it was the Central Asian steppe nomads (mostly the Turks, but Mongols too) who kept invading their settle neighbors and committing barbaric acts. Pretty much all the Islamic Invasions of India were by Turks (with Afghan soldiers); Byzantium was conquered and colonized by Turks, not Arabs. Timur/Tamerlane, a particularly brutal campaigner, was a Turk. Etcetera.
As for Persians vs Arabs, I think the former would make better friends than the latter, and it's in America's interests to kiss and make up with the Mullahs in Tehran. If you want a fight, pick one with the Saudis, who are the ultimate benefactors of every bunch of Islamic crazies now roaming the planet.Replies: @Bliss, @gu
But these fanatics of today are religiously imitating the fanaticism of the founder of Islam himself. Their stonings and head choppings and forced conversions are exactly what Mohammad himself practiced when he was the warlord/prophet/founder of the Medina theocracy. According to the Quran, Allah has decreed that his prophet Mohammad should be emulated by all muslims till the Day of Judgement. So these salafis/wahhabis of al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS are actually the true muslims.
By the way, stoning to death is taught in the Bible itself. Jesus, to his credit rejected, this Old Testament practice.
And while Turks may seem sedate compared to Arabs today, for most of Islamic history, they were the ultimate crazies. Arab imperialism itself pretty much stopped after Poitiers (in the West) and the conquest of Persia in the East; i.e., by the 8th century (yes, I know there were Moorish corsairs in the Mediterranean, but that was disorganized piracy, not imperialism.) From the 10th century onwards, it was the Central Asian steppe nomads (mostly the Turks, but Mongols too) who kept invading their settle neighbors and committing barbaric acts. Pretty much all the Islamic Invasions of India were by Turks (with Afghan soldiers); Byzantium was conquered and colonized by Turks, not Arabs. Timur/Tamerlane, a particularly brutal campaigner, was a Turk. Etcetera.
As for Persians vs Arabs, I think the former would make better friends than the latter, and it's in America's interests to kiss and make up with the Mullahs in Tehran. If you want a fight, pick one with the Saudis, who are the ultimate benefactors of every bunch of Islamic crazies now roaming the planet.Replies: @Bliss, @gu
“From the 10th century onwards, it was the Central Asian steppe nomads (mostly the Turks, but Mongols too) who kept invading their settle neighbors and committing barbaric acts. Pretty much all the Islamic Invasions of India were by Turks (with Afghan soldiers); Byzantium was conquered and colonized by Turks, not Arabs. Timur/Tamerlane, a particularly brutal campaigner, was a Turk. Etcetera.”
Tamerlane a Turk?
Just because he is Turkic doesn’t mean he was a Turk. He waged war against Turks.
Mughals also weren’t Turks the way we know them.
Ottomans did what Alexander and Genghis Khan were famous for: conquer. Only because of Islam it seems to be “barbaric” to you.
When I said "Turk", I meant historically Turkic peoples, not the present day residents of Anatolia. And yes, Timur and the early Mughals (Babar and Humayun) were Turks by ethnicity.
Indeed the "Imperial Tumans" (Mongol divisions of 10,000 men each made up of ethnic Mongol warriors) were always very few. As the Mongol conquests extended westward, they drafted ever larger numbers of Turkic peoples, especially Cumans/Kipchaks into their armies. Although the latter were skilled horse-riding people as well, they were never as disciplined as Mongols were and were not nearly as effective as soldiers.
Eventually, the Mongols assimilated into the vast multitudes they conquered, especially among the Turkic peoples and adapted their language and customs by and large. Tamerlane emerged out of this mixed brew.
Still, the line of Genghis Khan, the Genghisids, were highly revered in Central Asia, and for this reason alone Tamerlane could never be a Khan or a king in name. He married a Genghisid princess and set up a descendant of Chaghatai (Genghis Khan's second son) as the nominal ruler of his realm.
Although the term "Turk" is used to mean the citizen of the modern Turkish Republic today, historically it has been an ethno-cultural term, akin to "Hispanic" or even "Jewish." Turks could be racially very European (some Ottoman Turks) in the West or more Mongolian-looking (e.g. Uzbeks) in the East.
In college, I had a friend who was an international student from Turkey. He looked very Eastern European. When I queried him about this, he said (with some exaggeration) "Well, I am from Istanbul. When you go to the countryside in Anatolia, people start to look more like you."
Tamerlane a Turk?
Just because he is Turkic doesn't mean he was a Turk. He waged war against Turks.
Mughals also weren't Turks the way we know them.
Ottomans did what Alexander and Genghis Khan were famous for: conquer. Only because of Islam it seems to be "barbaric" to you.Replies: @Numinous, @Twinkie
I consider all such mass invaders to be barbarians; Alexander and Genghis Khan included. Some were better than others, but only in degree. So I’m not blaming (only) Islam for this.
When I said “Turk”, I meant historically Turkic peoples, not the present day residents of Anatolia. And yes, Timur and the early Mughals (Babar and Humayun) were Turks by ethnicity.
I think you might have stopped reading my comment after the first paragraph. I do mention Arab conquests in the West and East way back in the 7th and 8th centuries, and say that their depredations subsequently stalled, whereupon the Turks took over. I meant to connect that to what I had written in the first paragraph but forgot to do so.
Thus they began to import large numbers of more warlike tribesmen, usually from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Men from the latter were particularly prized as skilled cavalrymen, especially horse archers. Eventually, the Turkic soldiers realized their own power and began to take over both the leadership of the Islamic world as well as its (now renewed) conquering zeal.
They did this well in general until the 13th Century when the Mongol whirlwind exploded out of the east obliterating everything from Bokhara to Baghdad, extinguishing much of the Turko-Islamic political and military power and unwittingly aiding the rise of the Ottoman Turks farther west.
"Arab radicalism is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Well, there’s been some radicalism in the desert since Wahhab started preaching in the 18th century, but that remained in the desert until WWI."
I disagree. There are reports that go back centuries, from travellers.
Also with impulsive behavior with low self-control, egocentrism, tendency towards violence... This was probably there even before Islam, but Islam may have strengthened all that because people with that sort of behavior have more success in an Islamic society.Replies: @KA, @Hepp
Also with impulsive behavior with low self-control, egocentrism, tendency towards violence…
Arab countries have very low rates of street crime, which is not indicative of low self-control. Violence is the result of terrorism, which involves the ability to remain disciplined, organize, plan, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Africa and Latin America take the cake. East Asia and Northern Europe have the lowest rates. The rest are in-between. In general, where central governments are weak, there are higher rates of violent crime.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @Hepp
Tamerlane a Turk?
Just because he is Turkic doesn't mean he was a Turk. He waged war against Turks.
Mughals also weren't Turks the way we know them.
Ottomans did what Alexander and Genghis Khan were famous for: conquer. Only because of Islam it seems to be "barbaric" to you.Replies: @Numinous, @Twinkie
Tamerlane (or Timur the Lame) was more accurately a Turko-Mongol. You have to understand that although the Mongols conquered the largest contiguous land empire ever known to men in a very short period of time, they were extremely few in number.
Indeed the “Imperial Tumans” (Mongol divisions of 10,000 men each made up of ethnic Mongol warriors) were always very few. As the Mongol conquests extended westward, they drafted ever larger numbers of Turkic peoples, especially Cumans/Kipchaks into their armies. Although the latter were skilled horse-riding people as well, they were never as disciplined as Mongols were and were not nearly as effective as soldiers.
Eventually, the Mongols assimilated into the vast multitudes they conquered, especially among the Turkic peoples and adapted their language and customs by and large. Tamerlane emerged out of this mixed brew.
Still, the line of Genghis Khan, the Genghisids, were highly revered in Central Asia, and for this reason alone Tamerlane could never be a Khan or a king in name. He married a Genghisid princess and set up a descendant of Chaghatai (Genghis Khan’s second son) as the nominal ruler of his realm.
Although the term “Turk” is used to mean the citizen of the modern Turkish Republic today, historically it has been an ethno-cultural term, akin to “Hispanic” or even “Jewish.” Turks could be racially very European (some Ottoman Turks) in the West or more Mongolian-looking (e.g. Uzbeks) in the East.
In college, I had a friend who was an international student from Turkey. He looked very Eastern European. When I queried him about this, he said (with some exaggeration) “Well, I am from Istanbul. When you go to the countryside in Anatolia, people start to look more like you.”
This is true. After the initial surge of Arab conquests (which were often more predatory/piratical than proper conquests), the Arabs did meet counterattacks. These, combined with internal squabbles, sapped much of their external aggression. To put simply, they got fat, happy, and dumb off the spoils of Persia and Syria.
Thus they began to import large numbers of more warlike tribesmen, usually from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Men from the latter were particularly prized as skilled cavalrymen, especially horse archers. Eventually, the Turkic soldiers realized their own power and began to take over both the leadership of the Islamic world as well as its (now renewed) conquering zeal.
They did this well in general until the 13th Century when the Mongol whirlwind exploded out of the east obliterating everything from Bokhara to Baghdad, extinguishing much of the Turko-Islamic political and military power and unwittingly aiding the rise of the Ottoman Turks farther west.
Arab countries have very low rates of street crime, which is not indicative of low self-control. Violence is the result of terrorism, which involves the ability to remain disciplined, organize, plan, etc.Replies: @Twinkie
See the intentional murder rates by country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Africa and Latin America take the cake. East Asia and Northern Europe have the lowest rates. The rest are in-between. In general, where central governments are weak, there are higher rates of violent crime.
For example, take a look at the difference between the rates below for South Africa and Zimbabwe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
How can South Africa have a rate three times that of Zimbabwe?Replies: @Twinkie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Africa and Latin America take the cake. East Asia and Northern Europe have the lowest rates. The rest are in-between. In general, where central governments are weak, there are higher rates of violent crime.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @Hepp
Do you seriously think we can believe those stats?
For example, take a look at the difference between the rates below for South Africa and Zimbabwe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
How can South Africa have a rate three times that of Zimbabwe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Africa and Latin America take the cake. East Asia and Northern Europe have the lowest rates. The rest are in-between. In general, where central governments are weak, there are higher rates of violent crime.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @Hepp
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and others have murder rates as low as nearly any East Asian or European countries. Jordan and Lebanon are just slightly higher. Doesn’t seem to indicate low levels of self-control.
Monaco is zero and Singapore is 0.2 while Kuwait is 0.4. That makes Kuwait infinitely more murderous than Monaco and twice as much as Singapore.
Evaluating regions as wholes, my earlier statement stands: Northern Europe and East Asia are the least murderous. Africa and Latin America the most murderous. Others are in-between.
I am not the one who argued that the lack of impulse control automatically equals high crime rate. That was another commenter. I do suspect there is a huge genetic explanation to criminal tendencies, but environment too (especially social control mechanisms) matters. Also, some populations can self-police more effortlessly than others. Singaporeans, for example, will form queues spontaneously and smoothly without any guidance from the authority. They are some of the most civilized people on earth. Kuwaitis... well, let's just say they will ignore such conventions when panic hits them. Just ask their fighter pilots c. 1990.Replies: @Steve Sailer
For example, take a look at the difference between the rates below for South Africa and Zimbabwe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
How can South Africa have a rate three times that of Zimbabwe?Replies: @Twinkie
I don’t “believe” in them. Such statistics should always be taken with a very large grain of salt (reporting biases, error rates, etc.), but do serve a “rough” purpose when looking at larger regional trends.
What do you find troublesome about it?
Well, if we are going to cherry-pick tiny countries with extremely high expatriate populations where order is maintained by police states, why not compare them to Monaco and Singapore (with considerably less “police state” like apparatus)?
Monaco is zero and Singapore is 0.2 while Kuwait is 0.4. That makes Kuwait infinitely more murderous than Monaco and twice as much as Singapore.
Evaluating regions as wholes, my earlier statement stands: Northern Europe and East Asia are the least murderous. Africa and Latin America the most murderous. Others are in-between.
I am not the one who argued that the lack of impulse control automatically equals high crime rate. That was another commenter. I do suspect there is a huge genetic explanation to criminal tendencies, but environment too (especially social control mechanisms) matters. Also, some populations can self-police more effortlessly than others. Singaporeans, for example, will form queues spontaneously and smoothly without any guidance from the authority. They are some of the most civilized people on earth. Kuwaitis… well, let’s just say they will ignore such conventions when panic hits them. Just ask their fighter pilots c. 1990.
Monaco is zero and Singapore is 0.2 while Kuwait is 0.4. That makes Kuwait infinitely more murderous than Monaco and twice as much as Singapore.
Evaluating regions as wholes, my earlier statement stands: Northern Europe and East Asia are the least murderous. Africa and Latin America the most murderous. Others are in-between.
I am not the one who argued that the lack of impulse control automatically equals high crime rate. That was another commenter. I do suspect there is a huge genetic explanation to criminal tendencies, but environment too (especially social control mechanisms) matters. Also, some populations can self-police more effortlessly than others. Singaporeans, for example, will form queues spontaneously and smoothly without any guidance from the authority. They are some of the most civilized people on earth. Kuwaitis... well, let's just say they will ignore such conventions when panic hits them. Just ask their fighter pilots c. 1990.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Cairo is famously low in street crime. You don’t want to be a blonde woman walking the streets in Cairo, but it has traditionally been quite safe for a Western man to walk around.
Cairo ain't so safe for an American today, even for a man. At least that's what the State Department told its "non-essential staff" a year or so ago (if memory serves correctly).
If by "traditionally," you mean when the Brits and the Egyptians ran a condominium together to the south, then, yes, you are right.
A blonde woman walking alone at night is not a good idea in all but the most civilized of places.
Cairo ain’t so safe for an American today, even for a man. At least that’s what the State Department told its “non-essential staff” a year or so ago (if memory serves correctly).
If by “traditionally,” you mean when the Brits and the Egyptians ran a condominium together to the south, then, yes, you are right.
With the shock collar we are capable of preserve him off leash and he can run, hunt, play and….even get tired out!