History, Culture, Ethnicity- Does Anyone Care?
This post is pretty long and winds around a bit, but, hey, it's my blog. The thesis that I attempt to develop is that in my opinion the US foreign policy is completely lacking in the areas of historical perspective and cultural impact on the regions, nations, and ethnic groups it affects. I feel that this is obvious to me as a layperson (i.e. I'm not a politician, diplomat, or historian by profession.)
I enjoy history. I'm always amused when I think some trend or innovation is new and, well, innovative. I know several historians, each in different disciplines, who will on occasion politely (or not so politely) shake their heads and say something like, "That has strong parallels with what was going on in the SE United States from 1830 up until about 1850.....". Historians are good at shooting down smug "I'm so new and innovative" claims. I think history is important for lots of reasons. Everyone is familiar with the old, "If we don't learn from history we're bound to repeat it" (my paraphrase). There are many other reasons, too, I think. Along the lines of my friends earlier statement, a good view of history can be a good dose of humility when we read about indoor plumbing in West Africa when my ancestors were still painting themselves blue, living in caves, and probably eating each other once in a while. Yes, running naked into battle was once considered the ultimate expression of machismo! Additionally, I think our sense of history, i.e. how far back we look for our identity personally and as a society, can have a strong influence on our present day behaviors and consequences, including family relations, foreign policy, "why they hate us", even the outcome of wars fought thousands of miles away.
While living in SE Asia I had numerous conversations with people who had a very different view of history than me. One interesting conversation was with a language teacher. During one lesson the conversation rolled around to some photos of some historic buildings in the US. I told her that some of them were over two hundred years old (wow!). She replied in an unimpressed tone that the current ruling dynasty was about that old. I laughed at myself. Her identity with her ethnic group and the physical location of her nation dated back thousands of years. The two hundred or so years of the US was simply the age of the latest dynasty. I realize that my European history dates back to comparable times to hers, but I don't really have a strong identity with those roots. Many of us in the US of European descent have lost much of our ties to that history as being "ours". We ridicule the French and Germans in these present times. We look back with pride on our break with British royalty whereas my Asian friend looks on the monarchy that ruled her country five hundred years ago with awe and admiration. There are prominent statues honoring war heroes from a thousand years ago, heroes that present day folks honor as having defended the land and preserved their culture.
In the US we do have some areas of the country that still feel strongly connected to the pre-civil war culture. I have a cousin who has researched our family roots extensively as part of his connection with that past. Some of it gets a bit vague with rumors of horse thieves so we don't pursue that line too far. My opinion is that the mainstream US (I know, I know- don't ask me define that too specifically) connection with history is pretty short-term. We are a consumer society that for the most part lives in a short past and are pretty much concentrating on the here and now issues like making a living and achieving comfort. We are hight tech and have instant access to information, e.g. internet, library, etc... that don't require any interpersonal contact. That is, we don't have to rely on elders to tell us the history of our people verbally.
Another conversation I had a few years back was with a Pakistani gentleman, Faruq. He was very upset with the war in Afghanistan, but, despite that, we were having a very friendly conversation about it. He is a Pashtun which is the same tribe as the Taliban. If you look at their distribution on a map you'll see that they are distributed across Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as some other pockets in the region. It was quite clear in our conversation that Faruq had much more of a Pashtun identity than a Pakistani one. When we spoke about the situation in Afghanistan he used the pronoun "we" in reference to the Pashtun and Taliban rather than "they". He was very upset with the US attack on Afghanistan and had several reasons. Our conversation wasn't so much about the Taliban than it was the internal and external politics involved. In other words, we didn't get into the Shari'a law and oppressive aspects of the Taliban rule. Instead, our discussion centered more around the conflict within Afghanistan between the Sunni's in the South (i.e. the Pashtun Taliban) and the Shi'a in the north (remember the Afghan Northern Alliance ? ). Long story short, he stated that Afghanistan's politics can be seen as pretty much a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. He said that "the English came" and were good at exploiting the differences in the region. but they eventually left and we were able to rule ourselves again. (When he said this I thought to myself, "Did he just say, "the English came"? What year are we talking about?" I later looked it up and he was talking about 1839 like it was yesterday.) He then said, "Then the Soviets came and left. Now the Americans have come but they will eventually leave. We can wait. When they leave we will once again take up our cause and fight." Here was another person living in the same moment as me but with a very different view of history and, because of that, the present. I'm not making value judgments on his views, just repeating what he said.
What is my point? My point is that Iraq is filled with people much like the people I describe above and unlike the modern, non-recent-immigrant US citizen. While the stated desired outcomes from the conflicts in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan, seem a bit fluid, themes of "stability", "peace", and "security" are ones that most of the players would love to see happen. It seems to me, however, that actions have been taken in the spirit of vengeance and "justice" that are in direct opposition to "making the world a safer place"
As we map out responses to terror, I'm sure there are several routes to take. The one we seem to have taken from the start is the one that we had the "right" to pursue i.e. They attacked us so we have the right to go after them." "Saddam hasn't complied to we have the "right" to go after him." Neither of these, in my opinion, further the over-all honorable goal of a lasting stability and peace in the world. Instead, history, ethnicity, and regional dynamics have all been ignored for the short-term goals of personal (in a corporate sense) vengeance. This administration seems at a loss as to how to handle the impasse over the Iraqi constitution. They seem to really expect a majority of Iraqis to feel an Iraqi national identity over their individual cultural identity (i.e. Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd, etc....). Sadaam Hussein didn't have an Iraqi identity yet we expect the rest of Iraq to do so? Where are the history and cultural experts in the administration who are warning Bush about all of these issues? Where are the military specialists on these issues? Have they been silenced or just ignored? If the Kurds establish some degree of independence, has anyone informed Bush that this is Turkey's greatest fears come true? What will that do to "stability in the region? A quick review of the area on a Google search would warn of these issues, let alone access to several intelligence agencies who have had operations in the region for years!!! One of the saddest things I've observed about this administration's approach to the "war on terror" is the total disregard for the complicated cultural and world-view issues involved in the region in favor of a gun-slinging arrogance that expects superior military might to quickly settle any issue.
I am by no means saying that a "culturally aware" policy is an easy proposition, but it is one that has to be taken if we don't want to be find ourselves time after time scratching our heads wondering why the big guns didn't solve the problem. Bush talks about sacrifice and commitment. I'm saying that part of sacrifice and commitment is going the extra mile to consider cultural, sociological, and anthropological issues in order to achieve real and lasting results in our foreign policy. Even if you are a war-hawk and want to conquer the Middle East, it seems that you would want to have thorough insight into these factors before you initiated a military campaign. I know this is a pipe dream, but I believe it to be of vital importance as more and more world conflicts boil down to tribalism (Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, Israel/Palestine, etc....) I wonder if Bush could tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a? Probably way too much to expect him to understand Wahhabism even though it has had incredible impact on his entire presidency.
If you are still reading, here's to the historians and cultural sociologists and anthropologists who were warning us about this "quagmire" long before the first Abrams tanks hit the sand. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when the information is readily available, sometimes being screamed at deaf ears.
I enjoy history. I'm always amused when I think some trend or innovation is new and, well, innovative. I know several historians, each in different disciplines, who will on occasion politely (or not so politely) shake their heads and say something like, "That has strong parallels with what was going on in the SE United States from 1830 up until about 1850.....". Historians are good at shooting down smug "I'm so new and innovative" claims. I think history is important for lots of reasons. Everyone is familiar with the old, "If we don't learn from history we're bound to repeat it" (my paraphrase). There are many other reasons, too, I think. Along the lines of my friends earlier statement, a good view of history can be a good dose of humility when we read about indoor plumbing in West Africa when my ancestors were still painting themselves blue, living in caves, and probably eating each other once in a while. Yes, running naked into battle was once considered the ultimate expression of machismo! Additionally, I think our sense of history, i.e. how far back we look for our identity personally and as a society, can have a strong influence on our present day behaviors and consequences, including family relations, foreign policy, "why they hate us", even the outcome of wars fought thousands of miles away.
While living in SE Asia I had numerous conversations with people who had a very different view of history than me. One interesting conversation was with a language teacher. During one lesson the conversation rolled around to some photos of some historic buildings in the US. I told her that some of them were over two hundred years old (wow!). She replied in an unimpressed tone that the current ruling dynasty was about that old. I laughed at myself. Her identity with her ethnic group and the physical location of her nation dated back thousands of years. The two hundred or so years of the US was simply the age of the latest dynasty. I realize that my European history dates back to comparable times to hers, but I don't really have a strong identity with those roots. Many of us in the US of European descent have lost much of our ties to that history as being "ours". We ridicule the French and Germans in these present times. We look back with pride on our break with British royalty whereas my Asian friend looks on the monarchy that ruled her country five hundred years ago with awe and admiration. There are prominent statues honoring war heroes from a thousand years ago, heroes that present day folks honor as having defended the land and preserved their culture.
In the US we do have some areas of the country that still feel strongly connected to the pre-civil war culture. I have a cousin who has researched our family roots extensively as part of his connection with that past. Some of it gets a bit vague with rumors of horse thieves so we don't pursue that line too far. My opinion is that the mainstream US (I know, I know- don't ask me define that too specifically) connection with history is pretty short-term. We are a consumer society that for the most part lives in a short past and are pretty much concentrating on the here and now issues like making a living and achieving comfort. We are hight tech and have instant access to information, e.g. internet, library, etc... that don't require any interpersonal contact. That is, we don't have to rely on elders to tell us the history of our people verbally.
Another conversation I had a few years back was with a Pakistani gentleman, Faruq. He was very upset with the war in Afghanistan, but, despite that, we were having a very friendly conversation about it. He is a Pashtun which is the same tribe as the Taliban. If you look at their distribution on a map you'll see that they are distributed across Pakistan and Afghanistan as well as some other pockets in the region. It was quite clear in our conversation that Faruq had much more of a Pashtun identity than a Pakistani one. When we spoke about the situation in Afghanistan he used the pronoun "we" in reference to the Pashtun and Taliban rather than "they". He was very upset with the US attack on Afghanistan and had several reasons. Our conversation wasn't so much about the Taliban than it was the internal and external politics involved. In other words, we didn't get into the Shari'a law and oppressive aspects of the Taliban rule. Instead, our discussion centered more around the conflict within Afghanistan between the Sunni's in the South (i.e. the Pashtun Taliban) and the Shi'a in the north (remember the Afghan Northern Alliance ? ). Long story short, he stated that Afghanistan's politics can be seen as pretty much a Sunni-Shi'a conflict. He said that "the English came" and were good at exploiting the differences in the region. but they eventually left and we were able to rule ourselves again. (When he said this I thought to myself, "Did he just say, "the English came"? What year are we talking about?" I later looked it up and he was talking about 1839 like it was yesterday.) He then said, "Then the Soviets came and left. Now the Americans have come but they will eventually leave. We can wait. When they leave we will once again take up our cause and fight." Here was another person living in the same moment as me but with a very different view of history and, because of that, the present. I'm not making value judgments on his views, just repeating what he said.
What is my point? My point is that Iraq is filled with people much like the people I describe above and unlike the modern, non-recent-immigrant US citizen. While the stated desired outcomes from the conflicts in Iraq, and to a degree Afghanistan, seem a bit fluid, themes of "stability", "peace", and "security" are ones that most of the players would love to see happen. It seems to me, however, that actions have been taken in the spirit of vengeance and "justice" that are in direct opposition to "making the world a safer place"
"In World War II we fought to make the world safer, then worked to rebuild it. As we wage war today to keep the world safe from terror, we must also work to make the world a better place for all its citizens."
President Bush Washington, D.C. (Inter-American Development Bank) March 14, 2002
As we map out responses to terror, I'm sure there are several routes to take. The one we seem to have taken from the start is the one that we had the "right" to pursue i.e. They attacked us so we have the right to go after them." "Saddam hasn't complied to we have the "right" to go after him." Neither of these, in my opinion, further the over-all honorable goal of a lasting stability and peace in the world. Instead, history, ethnicity, and regional dynamics have all been ignored for the short-term goals of personal (in a corporate sense) vengeance. This administration seems at a loss as to how to handle the impasse over the Iraqi constitution. They seem to really expect a majority of Iraqis to feel an Iraqi national identity over their individual cultural identity (i.e. Shi'a, Sunni, Kurd, etc....). Sadaam Hussein didn't have an Iraqi identity yet we expect the rest of Iraq to do so? Where are the history and cultural experts in the administration who are warning Bush about all of these issues? Where are the military specialists on these issues? Have they been silenced or just ignored? If the Kurds establish some degree of independence, has anyone informed Bush that this is Turkey's greatest fears come true? What will that do to "stability in the region? A quick review of the area on a Google search would warn of these issues, let alone access to several intelligence agencies who have had operations in the region for years!!! One of the saddest things I've observed about this administration's approach to the "war on terror" is the total disregard for the complicated cultural and world-view issues involved in the region in favor of a gun-slinging arrogance that expects superior military might to quickly settle any issue.
I am by no means saying that a "culturally aware" policy is an easy proposition, but it is one that has to be taken if we don't want to be find ourselves time after time scratching our heads wondering why the big guns didn't solve the problem. Bush talks about sacrifice and commitment. I'm saying that part of sacrifice and commitment is going the extra mile to consider cultural, sociological, and anthropological issues in order to achieve real and lasting results in our foreign policy. Even if you are a war-hawk and want to conquer the Middle East, it seems that you would want to have thorough insight into these factors before you initiated a military campaign. I know this is a pipe dream, but I believe it to be of vital importance as more and more world conflicts boil down to tribalism (Sudan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Rwanda, Congo, Israel/Palestine, etc....) I wonder if Bush could tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'a? Probably way too much to expect him to understand Wahhabism even though it has had incredible impact on his entire presidency.
If you are still reading, here's to the historians and cultural sociologists and anthropologists who were warning us about this "quagmire" long before the first Abrams tanks hit the sand. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when the information is readily available, sometimes being screamed at deaf ears.
posted by Bootleg Blogger at 7:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home