"What Hitler and the Grand Mufti Really Said" Topic

"This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked a wave of backlash when he argued that the Holocaust was the brainchild of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who, Netanyahu claimed, suggested killing the Jews (rather than merely expelling them) to Hitler during a 1941 visit to Berlin. As it happens, the full German record of the meeting between al-Husseini and Hitler, on Nov. 28, 1941, was published half a century ago, and is readily available online. It is a fascinating and important document. Not only does it make clear that Netanyahu's accusation is false, but it also sheds light on the true origins of the Holocaust, and why Hitler undertook it when he did.

The timing of the meeting is critical to understanding it and placing it in context. In late November 1941, as World War II continued, German troops had besieged Leningrad and had reached the outskirts of Moscow. A great many observers all over the world had expected the USSR to have collapsed under the weight of the attack Hitler had unleashed that June, and it was not yet clear that Germany was not about to defeat the Soviet Union. Equally importantly, although the negotiations between the United States and Japan that were designed to preserve peace in the Pacific seemed about to fail, the United States was not yet in the war. When Hitler and al-Husseini met, both leaders clearly believed that Germany was going to win, and the bulk of their conversation dealt with what the Arabs should or should not do help bring that outcome about…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Yes, they only wanted to exterminate the Jews in the Middle East to start.

I can see it now, "We both have a Jewish problem".

"let's put our minds together and see if we can come up with a solution".

As it happens, the full German record of the meeting between al-Husseini and Hitler, on Nov. 28, 1941, was published half a century ago, and is readily available online.

And we can, of course, trust the Nazi record.

"And we can, of course, trust the Nazi record"

Funny, as I could replace Nazi with Netanyahu and the exact same meaning would be inferred. Come to think of it, I could also swap United States or the Soviet Union in there and the same negative inference would still apply.

No, no, no. What he really said was "Can we swap hats!"

Hyperbole Alert !!!!!

When Hitler and al-Husseini met, both leaders clearly believed that Germany was going to win, and the bulk of their conversation dealt with what the Arabs should or should not do help bring that outcome about…."

Yes because the Arab forces have proven to be so very effective it most combat situations during and after WWII in general …

Come to think of it, I could also swap United States or the Soviet Union in there and the same negative inference would still apply.

Oh yes the USA and Russia are very much carbon copies of each other …

Moral equivalency at its best. Favor tactic for apologist of evil.

You should put it into context, from the Balfour Declaration (1917) to the present times.

The Balfour Declaration was a typical colonialist action whose possible consequences caused understandable concern among Palestinian population (Islamic and Christian alike).

We know very well that Western colonialist countries have created (and create today) new artificial countries and boundaries in that area, always in the name of their own economic and strategic interests. The way in which the State of Israel was created was a disaster, a mess, and we can see the consequences since then and even today.

People are not stupid, and Palestinian people, after the Great War, feared losing their homes in the near future. So it is understandable that one of their leaders (just one, there were many other Palestinian leaders who were not interested in that meeting with Hitler), looked for some possible aid against the colonial powers' intentions. Although we know now that Hitler was not precisely the right person.

If Palestinian people feared losing their homes due to the creation of a new Jewish State, it is understandable that Jewish Zionism was a problem for them. Obviously there was no racist behaviour in that case. It is just a logical concern for self-preservation.

By the way, Zionism is not a traditional Hebrew ideology or an ancient Hebrew religious path. It is a modern political movement.

Nobody in Palestine talked about a "Holocaust" or any other kind of people extermination. It is a fallacy. It is a disgusting lie.

Netanyahu is a liar, and an immoral corrupt politician.

Regarding the "Arabs forces", it is a derogatory and inaccurate concept. "Arabs forces" never existed. It is the typical colonialist concept which tries to despise other cultures and civilizations using non-existent generalisations.

And many soldiers who came from Islamic countries fought well against the Axis armies as part of Allied armies during World War Two. Many of them lost their lives. And those Bosnian soldiers who fought in the Balkans had no especial sympathy for Nazi ideology. They fought mainly against Serbians due to their traditional enmity.

It should be noted that Nazi regime hated Islamic and Jewish cultures alike because both are Semitic in nature and essence.

It is a shame to read more frequently in this forum the worst kind of comments made by some members, and based on the worst kind of behaviour: racism, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, supremacist ideology, fanatical nationalism and insane patriotism, colonialism, imperialism, warmongering, and so on.

It is a shame to read every kind of childish reasoning in order to justify all sort of crimes committed by their beloved imperialist governments. It is ridiculous to read a handful of simplistic, childish and Manichaean reasoning about good and evil in which the other cultures and civilizations are always the evil. In short, hypocrisy, ignorance and blind and fanatical nationalism.

But what it is remarkable is that those comments are based on ignorance, a total lack of knowledge and an intellectual laziness.

We have seen continuously this attitude in the Ultramodern Message Board: some members talking about other cultures and religions without any basic knowledge about them. They offer unfounded opinions and nonsense because they have not studied the basic concepts about religions, cultures, and modern historiography. They offer a bunch of prejudices, misconceptions and fallacies about cultures and civilizations that they do not understand and they do not know anything about. Their sources are tabloids and outdated orientalist writers, propagandists paid by the old and the new colonial powers.
In short, they are an example of criminal ignorance and a sample of lack of critical thinking.

Taking into account those kinds of posts and "opinions", backed by childish reasoning, I think many educated and respectful members will leave this forum for good, and me too in the near future if those kind of absurdities are posted again.

Regarding the "Arabs forces", it is a derogatory and inaccurate concept. "Arabs forces" never existed. It is the typical colonialist concept which tries to despise other cultures and civilizations using non-existent generalisations.

Well I'm no college professor. But as long as I have studied the ARAB-Israeli Wars. And even worked with some Egyptian Officers at Ft. Benning's Infantry School. Everybody I knew referred to military units from e.g. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya and much of North Africa as ARABs.

Didn't Lawrence lead Arab Forces against the Turks in WWI.

Did not Gertrude Bell refer many from those regions I mentioned as ARABs ?

There are whole lot of books and wargames about "The ARAB-Israeli Wars". There are even a book or two that talks about the Arabs in the Arab-Israeli War and their general overall "poor" performances.

Now, AFAIK Turks are referred to as Turks. Iranians generally as Persians. Neither are referred are Arabs.

And many soldiers who came from Islamic countries fought well against the Axis armies as part of Allied armies during World War Two. Many of them lost their lives.

Yes, I know many did. E.g. like in the French Army in WWII and were considered "colonial" troops. They also fought for the French in Indo-China after WWII.

Again, in most military studies the Arab Forces e.g. during the ABAB-Israeli Wars did not preform well. I.e. they generally Lost.

And those Bosnian soldiers who fought in the Balkans had no especial sympathy for Nazi ideology. They fought mainly against Serbians due to their traditional enmity.

Bosnians though many may be moslems are not considered Arabs. They are Bosnians. But I'm sure that is well known.

All "Arabs" are not moslems. Most are but many are not. E.g. Christian from those regions of the Mid East, North Africa, etc.

20% of Israel are not Jewish, but Arabs, Christians, etc.

Sorry I am just a former dumb Grunt …

Legion 4,

The concept of "Arab forces" is totally inaccurate and an absurdity. Egyptians are not "Arabs", Egyptians are Egyptians. It is very different. Syrians are not "Arabs", they are Syrians. Lebanese people are not "Arabs", they are Lebanese people. So "Arabs forces" never existed. The correct definitions are: Egyptian army, Syrian army, and so on.

I am aware of the inaccuracies that we can find in many history books. Many Western historians have used inaccurate concepts and absurd generalisations because they were not interested in understanding other cultures and civilizations. They have preferred to use those inaccuracies because they thought that kind of reductionism and simplification could facilitate a basic knowledge of history. This procedure is a mistake because it creates fake images and thoughts, and it leads to every kind of misconceptions and misunderstandings.

All Islamic countries share many Arabian cultural characteristics to a greater or lesser degree because Arabian language is the common sacred language and it is the language used in every religious aspect of their lives. It is true that this fact has created a strong link between all those countries but they are very different countries in all other aspects.

Islamic religion had its roots in Arabia, but every Islamic country has developed its own cultural characteristics based on its specific historical evolution and on its own ethnic components. The complexity and diversity increase if we take into consideration the presence of many other religions and Islamic sects within those countries. So, inaccurate generalisations such as "Arabs forces" should be avoided.

Well that is the first time I have heard that … but again I'm not a college professor. I had and have seen many, many books, media and even war games that use the term Arab-Israeli Wars. And use the term Arab in referring to those countries and regions of North Africa and the Middle East. You are going to have to send a lot of emails to many sources to tell them they are incorrect.

As an amateur military history student since my youth. As well as a former military professional['79-'90] who trained and studied history at the US Army Infantry School, The Combined Arms course, etc., etc. I'm not concerned so much about culture or religion, but military effectiveness of other nations'/regions' combatants.

We all know study of opponents' or potential opponents' history, including culture and religion is important/essential to understanding them. And may come into how they may be dealt with/combated, etc. We all know what Sun Tzu said about this, don't we?

If certain cultures or religions has some predilections, etc., because of their traditions and belief systems, etc. As soldiers we may need to take those "beliefs", etc., into account when dealing with them. E.g. the WWII IJFs. And again Sun Tzu …

We studied the WWII Germans/Nazis tactics, techniques and procedures. Not because we agreed with their ideologies. God No ! But how they fought in combat. With the intent for us to learn in some cases to copy and others to develop how to combat/deal with them.

In the US Army we studied such concepts as "Blitzkrieg"/Combined Arms, etc.. And our current Air Land Battle doctrine is somewhat based on that. And the US military is not the only one that does that.

I know in many cases UK forces in e.g. the WWII North African Campaign and Italy were just referred to as British or UK units. When in fact those forces were made up many nations/cultures. Including Scots, Welsh, Irish, ANZACs, Canadians, Indian, Poles, Czechs, Free French, etc., etc.

Even the nations in the Allies in WWII were refereed to a just that … Allies. Which included many nations. As with the WWII Axis and even the WWI Central Powers, etc., etc., etc. Or the UN Forces in the Korean War. We can even go as far as saying that about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, plus SEATO.

Or go as far as all using the examples of the states in the USA or even all the tribes of the American Indians. Which IIRC sometimes American Indians are referred to a "Amerians" by some in academia. Which actually makes sense to me. As the term Indians refers to people from the nation of India. Thru an error by the early Euros in the discovery of the New World. The natives, the indigenous peoples became known as "Indians".

So by referring to a region's forces as e.g. Arabs is the same thing. For a number of reasons IMO … Again … I'm just a simple former Grunt … As a former Soldier as I have said before. I really don't care about the nationality, religion, race, color, etc., of the enemy I may be in a firefight with. Only to understand their predilections, habits, tactics, etc. So I may use those to gain some advantage to defeat them.

As an Infantryman we were told on Day 1 our general overall mission. "Using maneuver and fire to close with to kill, capture, enemy personnel and equipment." That is all that counts at the tactical level.

Sometimes I think what you are saying is something like as some refer to as a sort of "Revisionist History" ?

I'm not going to argue with you Professor … you are much smarter than I. I'm just telling you like it is from my POV in "the field" … not the classroom.

"This week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparked a wave of backlash when he argued that the Holocaust was the brainchild of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who, Netanyahu claimed, suggested killing the Jews (rather than merely expelling them) to Hitler during a 1941 visit to Berlin. As it happens, the full German record of the meeting between al-Husseini and Hitler, on Nov. 28, 1941, was published half a century ago, and is readily available online. It is a fascinating and important document. Not only does it make clear that Netanyahu's accusation is false, but it also sheds light on the true origins of the Holocaust, and why Hitler undertook it when he did.

I read through the article in the link. It references several events that I am already familiar with. It also provides a link that it purports provides a complete record of the Mufti's conversations with Hitler. Unfortunately this link is just an article reporting the contents maintained in the British Archives on Foreign Policy of the Nazi records. I cast no aspersions on the content, but I for one would rather see the actual primary source (the Nazi archive material) than a secondary or tertiary source (an article about the content, or maybe even an article about a report about the content).

That said, I am of two minds on the issue. In some ways relieved (the selfish view) and in some ways disheartened (the world's interests view) that there are political leaders in other countries besides my own who also seem to have only a distant acquaintance with truth, as correlated by verifiable facts.

Regarding the "Arabs forces", it is a derogatory and inaccurate concept. "Arabs forces" never existed. It is the typical colonialist concept which tries to despise other cultures and civilizations using non-existent generalisations.

I can appreciate the perspective that Egyptians are Egyptian, and Syrians are Syrian. But I feel this response is stated in unrealistically absolutes.

Egypt was, for many years, known under the name of "United Arab Republic". In fact Egypt and Syria entered into a union under this name (although Syria later withdrew, and Egypt continued the use of the name on it's own). Later, Egypt entered into a confederation with Yemen that was referred to as the "United Arab States". In 1945 the League of Arab States (latter renamed the Arab League) was formed in Cairo, with founding nations including Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Today there are 22 member states of the Arab League.

How is it unreasonable to call Egyptian forces "Arab"?

We might reasonably suggest that we lose some resolution by this form of generalization. Yes, Moroccan troops are not Egyptian troops. But it is not wrong or inaccurate in any way to suggest that Moroccan and Egyptian forces are both Arab forces, any more than it is wrong or inaccurate to suggest British and French forces are both European forces, or that Serbian and Bosnian forces are both Balkan forces.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

How is it unreasonable to call Egyptian forces "Arab"?
We might reasonably suggest that we lose some resolution by this form of generalization. Yes, Moroccan troops are not Egyptian troops. But it is not wrong or inaccurate in any way to suggest that Moroccan and Egyptian forces are both Arab forces, any more than it is wrong or inaccurate to suggest British and French forces are both European forces, or that Serbian and Bosnian forces are both Balkan forces.

Agree totally !

No, I am not talking about Revisionism. All sciences are subjected to a continuous revision because their conclusions may be modified or changed. They are not definitive. This is especially true regarding Social Sciences in general and History (Historiography) in particular.

When Historians decide to establish new explanations about a historical process (connected facts and events from the past), they offer different hypothesis and theories which try to refute previous ones. Maybe they use new sources or new interpretations of old ones (hermeneutic approach). If the aim is to improve our knowledge and understanding about that historical process, the revisionism is constructive and necessary. If the purpose is to serve personal or ideological interests distorting and manipulating the sources and the interpretations, the revisionism is destructive and dangerous. So, honest and well-crafted revisionism is necessary. There are no dogmas in History (Historiography).

That is not the matter I am talking about. The problem is not revisionism, it is ethnocentrism. This is the key word. Western Historiography is basically ethnocentric in its procedures and in its conclusions. It has ignored, and ignores today, the nature and evolution which characterise other cultures and civilizations.

Western Historiography uses Western patterns and prejudices when it tries to study historical processes which affect other cultures and civilizations. It uses every kind of reductionism and simplification in order to "translate" matters that it does not understand because Western culture is "the centre of the universe". It considers all Western historical periods (Ancient, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Modern,…) and sub-periods as applicable to other cultures and civilizations which have nothing to do with them.

Western Historiography is based on the Western way to understand time, space and human life. It fails to understand that other cultures and civilizations have different ways to understand time, space and human life. We are so focused on ourselves that we have become unable to recognize human diversity. Ethnocentrism causes ignorance, intolerance and xenophobia.

I recommend the book Orientalism, by Edward Said. It is an easy and well-known starting point. There are many other studies and books by many other authors from all civilizations, more complicated and more specific. But those works requires a higher level of education, and a higher level of humility and motivation.

So Lebanese people are not Arabs, even although they can speak Arabic language and many of them are Moslems. US citizens are not English, even although they can speak English language and many of them are Christians.

"European forces" and "Balkan forces" are concepts that imply a geographical context: Europe and Balkans. Britain and France are part of Europe (in a geographical meaning). Serbia and Bosnia are included in the Balkans. But, is Morocco part of the Arabian Peninsula? Are Lebanon, Syria and Egypt part of the Arabian Peninsula? No.

Concepts such as "United Arab Republic" or "Arab league" are inaccurate translations. They only refer to certain cultural component, but not to a national meaning. In short, they are definitions made in order to satisfy Western understanding and classifications. English language, a Western one, is the language of International Institutions. Another example of Ethnocentrism.

I agree most of the region should not be described as 'Arabic'.

That it is, is because of the invasion of the Maghreb and the Levant during the 6th and 7th centuries by Arab Islamic forces and the imposition of Arab language,culture and ruling elites on the local population. Imposition in an Imperial and colonial manner long before the West as currently consituted or even conceived of, existed?

Said posited an interesting idea but he did so from a particular viewpoint of beating the West for its perceived support of Israel. Revisionist cultural history indeed, praising as he did the description of Israel as a 'Judeo-Nazi' culture.

That tells you pretty much all you need to know about decoding Said's messages about the Levant in general and Israel in particular. 'Palestinian' ethnocentrism played right back at the West.

The process of Islamic expansion, from the 7th century onwards, is totally different from the Western colonialism during the 19th and 20th centuries. The procedures, motivations, aims and consequences are totally different. It was another mentality with very different values and circumstances, as a result of a nomadic way of living. And it was another way to understand and to perceive indigenous people. The comparison or analogy between those two processes is nonsense. It is an absurdity.

Your opinion about the comparison between Islamic expansion and Western colonialism/imperialism is a good example of Western historical ethnocentrism. Thanks.

If you study deeply those two processes, you will notice the enormous differences between them. But, if you are going to study the Islamic expansion, you should not use only Western sources. Please, avoid ethnocentrism.

Regarding Edward Said, I would like to answer your comments:

Firstly, Edward Said's ideas about Western prejudices, misconceptions and contempt (Orientalism) were clever and well-crafted, especially because he knew them very well as part of a colonised people. He received an impressive Western education (the best Colleges and Universities) and he worked as university professor. He knew very well the Western culture, even better than many Western authors. So the accusation of ethnocentrism is nonsense.

Secondly, Western orientalism and Western colonialism were closely related. In fact they were inseparable. And we know that colonial powers ruled over Palestine and most Middle East countries. They created new artificial countries and boundaries at will, despising and ignoring indigenous people. The creation of the State of Israel, from Balfour (1917) until 1948, was possible thanks to Western colonial powers (and the US). So those countries were responsible for that creation. It was not Said's "particular vision", it is the truth. Every idea which Said expressed about those facts was accurate and legitimate.

There was no "revisionist cultural history" because Said was a Palestinian (Christian) and he was talking about Palestine, and the consequences derived from the artificial creation of Israel, as a Palestinian. He was talking about his land and his people. There was nothing to "revise" because there were no previous valid points of view, except that propagandist orientalism made up by fake Western historians.

You do not need to "decode" Said's "messages". His ideas are clear, well-crafted and well-founded. He was a Palestinian who suffered the conflict caused by the disastrous way in which the State of Israel was created. He understood very well the Western culture due to his impressive Western education. He was a Christian Palestinian who talked about Palestine. He had more legitimacy than, for example, a Norwegian historian who never visited Palestine or than an American "historian" paid by Zionists. So, in conclusion, "Palestinian ethnocentrism" is another absurdity.

Hmmmm … so again I have a lot of books and wargames that use the "accepted" term e.g. Arab-Israel Wars. So should those be changed to "The Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, and bunch of others from the Middle East and North Africa – Israeli Wars ?

Or should the WWII Allies be changed to the US, UK, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, Russian, French, Polish, Chinese and a bunch of others vs. the Germans[we could even go from regions, i.e. Saxony, Prussian, etc.], Italians, Japanese and some Koreans in Japanese service and a bunch of other guys War?

American "historian" paid by Zionists.

So is this more about anti-Zionist/Israeli/Jewish/Hebrew "leanings" than about what many/most have called "Arabs" now for many decades or longer ?

Or is this more about the West being apologetic about the Crusades and European Colonialism in the Mid East, North Africa, SW Asia in the past? In some cases the very distant past ?

Or about how the Allies after WWI, with the decisions of now long dead European Politicians ? That divided up the former Ottoman Turk Empire[and Austro-Hungarian Empire which included some moslems as well as Christians & Orthodox Christians] to suit themselves ? So now we the West have to apologize for that ?

I may be wrong but the Crusades was a long, long time ago. And Did not the Europeans leave most is not all their colonies after WWII?

No, I am not talking about Revisionism. All sciences are subjected to a continuous revision because their conclusions may be modified or changed. They are not definitive. This is especially true regarding Social Sciences in general and History (Historiography) in particular.

Yes, that is a given. E.g. So which one is "right" … E.g. The American Civil War ?

Or The war of the Blue & Gray [or is it Grey]?

Or The War of Northern Aggression ?

Or ? Just list all the Union States vs. the Confederate States ?

Again, I'm just former simple unenlightened Grunt …

So, in conclusion, "Palestinian ethnocentrism" is another absurdity.

It is not an absurdity it is a scientific inevitability. Tribalism and the mind sets that go with it are hard wired into our genetics. Tribalism is the only way we as a species could have survived. The requirements of a large brain which impose an energy penalty on us a species and the fact that our young are born premature (they have to be as the larger head of a more mature infant wouldn't pass through the birth canal) meant the only way we could survive to maturity was with a cooperative tribal system. The development of sophisticated language began the journey of man to be the pre-eminent species. The tribal aspect of our makeup has changed and developed over the centuries and now takes many forms. It could be expressed in support for a football club, local town, state, country, religion, ethnic background, sexuality, gender, political or philosophical ideas etc. Everyone will have more than one tribal affiliation. We as wargamers are a tribe, but we might also belong to many more tribes. We may even chose to leave one tribe and join another opposed to it. Leaving a tribe and joining another is obviously serious where survival is at stake as it weakens one tribe and strengthens the other, which is why some of the severest social censure is reserved for such people, turncoat, traitor etc. But make no mistake any Palestinian will view the world through his or her own tribal prism, whatever that may be.

Ruchel, do you actually read what you write?

Firstly, Edward Said's ideas … were clever and well-crafted …. He knew very well the Western culture, even better than many Western authors. So the accusation of ethnocentrism is nonsense.

Secondly, Western orientalism and Western colonialism were closely related. In fact they were inseparable. … It was not Said's "particular vision", it is the truth. Every idea which Said expressed about those facts was accurate and legitimate.

There was no "revisionist cultural history" because Said was a Palestinian … and he was talking about Palestine …. He was talking about his land and his people. There was nothing to "revise" because there were no previous valid points of view, except that propagandist orientalism made up by fake Western historians.

You do not need to "decode" Said's "messages". His ideas are clear, well-crafted and well-founded. … He had more legitimacy than, for example … an American "historian" paid by Zionists. So, in conclusion, "Palestinian ethnocentrism" is another absurdity.

If I read your writings, it appears you assert that there can be no questioning of a writer who is Palestinian on Western culture, because he knows it better than those in the west. And there can be no questioning a writer on Palestinian culture, because he is a Palestinian, and no one else ever wrote about Palestinian culture from the Palestinian perspective, and besides he writes the absolute truth with no questions permitted, and his opponents are paid by the great Jewish conspiracy.

Did I get that right?

Just want to be clear.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Legion 4,

The matter we are discussing here is a complicated one. There are many interrelated issues. In this case, it is unavoidable due to the nature of the topic discussed. A corrupt and despicable politician lies about some historical events in order to achieve his aim: he wants to put the blame on Palestinians, and he wants to earn Western sympathy for the purpose of isolating Palestinians. He wants Western people to consider Palestinians as criminals. His reasoning is full of distortions and manipulations.

It is the typical Zionist propaganda. But it is especially despicable in this case due to the use of Holocaust as an instrument in order to attack other people who have nothing to do with it.

That disgusting reasoning tries to reactivate in Western people all the old prejudices, misconceptions, ethnocentrism and xenophobia referred to other civilizations for the purpose of denigrating Palestinians and any other country that supports them (especially other "Arab" countries). The idea is that Western people consider that culture or civilization as the enemy, as barbarians who must be blamed and punished. That reasoning is absolutely untrue and immoral.

So matters such as revisionism, ethnocentrism, colonialism, orientalism, supremacist ideas, xenophobia, Islamophobia, intolerance, ignorance, and so on, are related to this topic about fallacies and manipulations made by that immoral politician.

Fred,

I understand your reasoning. It is very interesting. But we are talking about different approaches. Tribalism, or sense of belonging to a community or group, is natural and unavoidable. It is true. But Western Ethnocentrism it is a very different thing. It goes far beyond the limits of tribalism.

Western Ethnocentrism is a gigantic structure, an artificial construct built from the end of the 18th century and especially during the 19th and 20th century. It was built by philosophers, scientists, politicians, artists, militaries, religious authorities, merchants, and so on. It is the result of a specific historical trajectory. It is based on the concept of linear and progressive cultural evolution, always within the questionable Western patterns of culture and evolution. This concept is a fallacy scientifically and anthropologically speaking. It changed totally the way we considered our own culture and other cultures and civilizations. It created a complete structure of stereotyped images, prejudices, projections and approaches. The Western concepts about time, space and human life became the universal pattern. All other cultures and civilizations, with their own concepts of time, space and human life, were considered inferior and barbarian. And this vision continues nowadays, mostly in an implicit way and in some external behaviour as well.

The ethnocentrism in other cultures is just a sort of tribalism, more or less elaborate, a sense of belonging to the community, or a way to maintain self-preservation.

Western Ethnocentrism is not just a point of view. It is a totalitarian way to explain all aspects of reality using fake images and creating fallacies and distortions.

A deep analysis of Western Ethnocentrism goes far beyond this topic and far beyond the contents of a wargames forum. There is an extensive bibliography about this matter. You can find that bibliography on Internet, obviously if you are interested in it.

Mark I,

Please, do not manipulate my words and sentences.

I think my reasoning has been clearly explained. It is easy to understand.

Firstly, again, Edward Said was a Christian Palestinian who experienced the conflict caused by the creation of the State of Israel, and he knew very well the colonial and post-colonial responsibility. He kept involved in the Palestinian trajectory during the rest of his life.

Secondly, again, Edward Said received an impressive Western education (Universities of Princeton, Harvard, Columbia). He lived mainly in a Western country. He wrote several books and took part in uncountable cultural activities.

Thirdly, as a result of his deep knowledge about both Middle East culture and Western culture alike, he was a totally reliable and honest author. His reasoning and conclusions are well researched, well-crafted and well-founded. He had no interest in "absolute truths" but in balanced and fair explanations and understandings.

Fourthly, Edward Said was a respected and acclaimed author. He received awards and recognition around the world. Many of his books are essential references in most educational institutions. You cannot say the same of many other "historians" or propagandists who have written "works" about that matter.

Maybe the "great Jewish conspiracy" is your obsession, not mine. I am not interested in conspiracies. I think you are mixing very different concepts. Hebrew, Jewish and Zionist are not the same concepts, they have different meanings. Zionism is a modern political ideology, not a religious one. Many Jewish people are not Zionist. I have Hebrew ancestors who were not Zionists.

I dislike Zionism. I dislike Communism, Fascism and Capitalism as well. But if I criticise Communism, am I talking about the "great Communist conspiracy"? Obviously it is not necessary.

I am criticising Zionism but not Hebrew culture or Jewish culture. It is very different, right?
And my criticism about Zionism is based on academic reasoning, facts and evidences, not on fantasy about conspiracies.

Unfortunately Ruchel the dominance of Western ethnocentrism is also inevitable, or if it hadn't been Western it would have been some other culture. The urge to compete is part of the tribal makeup and as I pointed out before the development of a sophisticated language was what propelled us to dominance over the other species. It was just as inevitable that the tribal group that learned to harness the power of language in all its forms more effectively than the other tribes would achieve tribal dominance, but it is still an example of the genetics of tribalism at work. Social scientists and anthroplogists can rail against it as much as they like and claim it is untrue and immoral, but it is not going to stop it. As you can see from this thread you are not getting anywhere with this tribe. You are fighting against several million years of evolution. Of course if you really drill down into neuroscience one has to challenge the concepts of morality and truth as you begin to realise that what we consider as reality is merely a construct of complex interactions within our brains driven by genetics honed over millennia of evolutionary pressure.

The matter we are discussing here is a complicated one.

Yes … Yes it is … As young man I saw in the news and in other media, etc., about certain related groups of terrorists from certain regions and religious beliefs committing acts of terrorism on the West. Including the nation I later took and oath to defend… the USA.

Those groups have morphed, grew and got bigger. And committed heinous act of terrorism on the US, our European and Israeli and Mid East/Arab allies. Surely no one cannot see the long lists of terrorist acts starting against the West since after the Israeli War of Independence. Also known by many as the 1st Arab-Israeli War of '47-'48. And from what I can tell in the USA's case who had no colonies in those regions. We supported the new Israeli nation over the others who attacked it. That is primarily why some hate us.

And as we see it continues today with groups like, AQ, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, AS, BH, IRGC and even the Taliban, etc. Those are the enemies of the US and the West. They killed/murdered many from my nation and those of our allies.

Again I'm a simple unenlightened former Grunt, who served'79-'90. I remember when I was Plt Ldr in an Air Assault Rifle Bn of the 101. We went on alert along with the 82d, Rangers, USMC, etc. When the Iranian Hostage Rescue mission failed. If ordered we would have been deployed to go to Iran. And most likely have killed many Iranians, their allies and supporters. Many of which took Hostages from or Embassy.

It would have mattered little who the were or why they took Americans hostages. They were and still are the enemy. And there are many like them still in those regions. Most of the fanatics, fundamentalists jihadis/terrorists are still around and are our still our enemy. Regardless of why … and if need be the US and it's allies will again do what has to be done to protect our people and borders. Zionists not withstanding …

You cannot say the same of many other "historians" or propagandists who have written "works" about that matter.

Sorry Ruchel I was typing my response to your earlier posting when this came through, so missed it. History itself is an expression of tribalism. In its earliest forms the oral histories and ancestor worship formed the basis around which the tribe formed its identity. It is more sophisticated now, using history, art, culture, architecture, commerce and a myriad other languages to establish and defend the tribal identity. You may not think of architecture as a form of language, but it is very much so. All historians are either seeking to reinforce their own tribes view or challenge the view of another tribe. The reality or truth they construct for their tribe will be different from the reality constructed by another tribes historians.

Interesting side note on Said and the 'Arabic' world from Steyonline -

And halfway across the world, on the streets of Ramallah, people filled the streets and cheered and passed out candy. They celebrated at Concordia University in Montreal, and in northern England and in Scandinavia, too, but I didn't find that out until e-mail from readers began coming through later in the day. In Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues followed events on the Arabic Service of the BBC. (Not all the BBC's output is in Arabic; it just sounds like it is.)

As the years go by, it's these curious examples of cultural interconnectedness that stay with me. "Interconnectedness" is the word used by the late Edward Said, the New York-based Palestinian grievance-monger and eminent America-disparager: a couple of weeks after 9/11, the professor deplored the tendency of commentators to separate cultures into what he called "sealed-off entities", when in reality western civilization and the Muslim world are so "intertwined"that it was impossible to "draw the line" between them. National Review's Rich Lowry was unimpressed. "The line seems pretty clear," he said. "Developing mass commercial aviation and soaring skyscrapers was the west's idea; slashing the throats of stewardesses and flying the planes into the skyscrapers was radical Islam's idea."

So the BBC's Arabic service is broadcast in Afghanistan and Said saw (post 9/11) the West and the Muslim world as interconnected…

On the other hand the Lowry quote is a perfect example of Orientalism -

The principal characteristic of Orientalism is a "subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arab-Islamic peoples and their culture", which derives from Western images of what is Oriental (cultural representations) that reduce the Orient to the fictional essences of "Oriental peoples" and "the places of the Orient"; such cultural representations dominate the communications (discourse) of Western peoples with and about non-Western peoples.[9]

These cultural representations usually depict the ‘Orient' as primitive, irrational, violent, despotic, fanatic, and essentially inferior to the westerner or native informant, and hence, ‘enlightenment' can only occur when "traditional" and "reactionary" values are replaced by "contemporary" and "progressive" ideas that are either western or western-influenced.

A;though it could be argued in the context of that first paragraph from Steynonline the Lowry had some justification for his statement…

These cultural representations usually depict the ‘Orient' as primitive, irrational, violent, despotic, fanatic, and essentially inferior to the westerner or native informant, and hence, ‘enlightenment' can only occur when "traditional" and "reactionary" values are replaced by "contemporary" and "progressive" ideas that are either western or western-influenced.

Seeing radical Islam as primitive, irrational, violent, despotic and fanatic definitely isn't something unique to the West.

The influence of Said's ideas may go some way to explaining why SJW types and others on the postmodern left seem so favourable to Islam when on the face of it the natural outcome should be conflict between them and religious Muslims.

Legion 4,

We are not talking about terrorism in this topic. Any kind of terrorism, including state terrorism (bombings, invasions, support to dictators, support to coups, support to terrorist groups, and so on) is criminal, despicable and immoral. Fanatical nationalism encourages people to turn a blind eye to heinous crimes committed by their own "democratic and civilized" countries. In contrast, I encourage the use of critical thinking in order to recognize all the crimes committed by Western countries, crimes which are being committed nowadays too.

Fred,

Yes, architecture is a form of language, in an implicit or symbolic way and in an explicit one, and in all cultures and civilizations.

Yes, all historians have their own tribal feelings (ethnic, ideological, corporatist, and so on). They can defend their own hypothesis and discuss others' ones. But they should be honest, balanced and self-critical. Historians must not create fake images, prejudices, representations, value judgements and so on, in order to denigrate and despise other cultures and civilizations, and to justify aggressions. Those kinds of "historians" are ignorant, uneducated, uncultured and arrogant. They are not historians or "tribal" historians, they are propagandists and liars instead. We are talking about different procedures, methods, and approaches, and about different intentions and aims.

Evolutionism and Neuroscience have achieve good results concerning to the biological aspect of human being, but they do not offer satisfactory answers for intangible aspects such as:religion, moral, art, emotions, many mental disorders, and so on. They offer uncountable hypothesis and supposed biological causes (in reality they have established only certain correlations but not direct causal connections) In fact, many of those hypothesis contradict each other.

Goragrad,

Every culture or civilization, even every country, has its own criminal groups. These groups create their own ideological justifications: political, religious, economic, atheist, and so on. You cannot judge a complete civilization or country using criminal groups as example or justification. In so doing, all civilizations and countries around the world should be considered "primitive, irrational, violent, despotic, fanatic and inferior".

Perhaps the Lowry quote may be considered a perfect example of Orientalism. The truth is that it is a perfect example of nonsense and stupidity.

Coconuts,

I repeat the same reasoning. Every civilization and every country has its own "radical" groups (political, ideological, religious, economic, atheist,…). I prefer the concept of "criminal" groups because they create fake justifications distorting religious or political ideas.

People who want to know and understand other cultures and civilizations (Islam Included) should study deeply, honestly and without any kind of prejudices, and using the best sources available (some Western sources but mainly sources from those civilizations).
The Western political ideologies are irrelevant and useless to this respect. Leftists and rightists are both full of Western prejudices. I have studied other cultures and civilizations for decades, besides other matters related to Historiography. I am a Westerner but I do not belong to any leftist tribe or to any rightist one.

"Thirdly, as a result of his deep knowledge about both Middle East culture and Western culture alike, he was a totally reliable and honest author." I'm sorry but for historical authors reliability and honest are measured by confirmation from independent sources, not because of deep knowledge. After all, Winston Churchill could claim deep knowledge of both middle east and western culture, but he's already been disparaged in this thread.

Evolutionism and Neuroscience have achieve good results concerning to the biological aspect of human being, but they do not offer satisfactory answers for intangible aspects such as:religion, moral, art, emotions, many mental disorders, and so on.

You will forgive me for disagreeing with, but this is my field of expertise. We are increasingly able with genetics to understand the basis of many mental disorders and with neuroscience and evolutionary theory explain the intangibles like religion, morality etc. We are starting to challenge some of the precepts on which social sciences are based and I realise this is going to be an uncomfortable thing for many. In addition to that in the not too distant future we will see powerful AI computers let loose on the field of history and these will have the advantage of not bringing tribal baggage with them.

Historians must not create fake images, prejudices, representations, value judgements and so on, in order to denigrate and despise other cultures and civilizations, and to justify aggressions.

Good luck with that. We can plainly see the advantages that have accrued to the western tribe from achieving dominance in cultural, historical, commercial and military fields. No tribe is going to give up that, whatever the moral argument.

Ruchel said:

The process of Islamic expansion, from the 7th century onwards, is totally different from the Western colonialism during the 19th and 20th centuries. The procedures, motivations, aims and consequences are totally different. It was another mentality with very different values and circumstances, as a result of a nomadic way of living. And it was another way to understand and to perceive indigenous people. The comparison or analogy between those two processes is nonsense. It is an absurdity.

Procedures – violent overthrow of the existing power nexus.
Motivation and aims – self aggrandisement, spread of religion, commercial benefits and supression of potential opposition.
Consequences – oppression of the conquered people, overthrow of their culture, imposition of the conquerors value systems and religion, vicious suppression of resistance.

All looks pretty similar to me.

Differences – Arab Islam has never felt any guilt about its actions whereas European colonialism is generally regarded as a 'bad thing' by its successor states.

As for being an 'absurdity', what a particularly shallow argument. I take it anything that disagrees with your opinion is 'absurd?'

Your lack of argument is Western exceptionalism turned on its head – only the West can be oppressive and bad. Whereas the 'East is always oppressed and good.

Gwydion,

Procedures – violent overthrow of the existing power nexus.
Motivation and aims – self aggrandisement, spread of religion, commercial benefits and supression of potential opposition.
Consequences – oppression of the conquered people, overthrow of their culture, imposition of the conquerors value systems and religion, vicious suppression of resistance.

All looks pretty similar to me.

I think the differences that will be highlighted will be related to the nature of Western colonialism in the 18th-20 century period, especially the development of industrial capitalism and the balance of power, much more skewed towards certain Western countries.

On the other hand, it seems that there can be something like 'Western exceptionalism' at work as well. One brand of it comes from Western writers themselves. Jordan Peterson summed it up briefly as promoting the belief that traditional Western civilisation is nothing but an oppressive tyrannical patriarchy devoid of any redeeming features. This is usually associated with parts of the political left in the West.

Given that, I found this part of Ruchel's reply to me surprising:

The Western political ideologies are irrelevant and useless to this respect. Leftists and rightists are both full of Western prejudices.

…because I think Edward Said's Orientalism theory was strongly influenced by ideas coming from left wing Western philosophers and cultural critics, Frankfurt school stuff from guys like Adorno and Althauser, Michel Foucault, Marxists like Gramsci etc.

Very interesting reading from one and all. But as TMP is an American forum I am not confident that anything anti-American will be allowed to survive. Good luck Ruchel.

We are not talking about terrorism in this topic. Any kind of terrorism, including state terrorism (bombings, invasions, support to dictators, support to coups, support to terrorist groups, and so on) is criminal, despicable and immoral. Fanatical nationalism encourages people to turn a blind eye to heinous crimes committed by their own "democratic and civilized" countries. In contrast, I encourage the use of critical thinking in order to recognize all the crimes committed by Western countries, crimes which are being committed nowadays too.

Your post/attitude is not surprising. There are many grey areas, and no one has clean hands. Frankly as a Plt Ldr and later Co. Cdr, I know the most powerful weapon I had were my radio(s). And if need be I'd call in mortars, FA, CAS, and Naval Fire Support on enemy positions/locations. But as we know with the fear of collateral damage in today's situations, it would probably be denied. And in turn cost the lives some of my men. That would upset me.

As soldier in the field, fanatical nationalism does not really come into play with most Western forces. It's a matter of survival. And the best way to survive is to eliminate as many as the enemy as possible. As often as possible.

Academic terms like nationalism or as you posted, Zionism, Communism, Fascism, Capitalism does not have any place in a firefight, I'd think.

Murvihill,

Please, explain "independent sources". People who are unfamiliar with the scientific method (applied to History) do not understand the concept of historical sources. Historians use historical sources in order to prepare, substantiate and establish an interpretative model of a particular historical event or process, that is, in order to offer a hypothesis. The scientific method requires that the hypotheses must be verified in the reality. A botanist can verify his hypothesis about the apple tree because he has, at the present time, an apple tree at his disposal. But the historian cannot verify because he is studying something from the past. So historians can only offer hypotheses and not verified theories. Historical knowledge is possible, but only in an approximate way, even sometimes conjectural, and always subject to revision.

The sources do not verify hypotheses, they help to build hypotheses. It is very different. Their place in the scientific method is clear and established. And historical sources do not speak by themselves, the historian make them to speak through interpretation process (hermeneutics). So knowledge, reliability and honesty are necessary in order to offer reasonable hypotheses.

Fred,

Genetic factor is one conditioning among others. I repeat: one among others. There is no absolute determinism in genetics. Genetics condition you and you condition genetics. It is a two-ways channel. So genetics cannot explain everything about the complexity of human nature. No, evolutionary theory cannot explain the causes of many intangibles. In fact, for example, scientists cannot know exactly how human language and self-consciousness appeared. They only can establish certain correspondences (using archaeological remains) with the cranial capacity, but those correspondences (sometimes contradictory) are indirect explanations, and they cannot offer satisfactory causal explanations.

The origins of language, self-consciousness, sense of transcendence (origins of beliefs and religions), superior emotions, and so on, can only be explained indirectly by hypotheses based on archaeological remains. The explanations are approximate and conjectural. Firstly because, for example, archaeological remains show you that some human ancestors started to bury their dead relatives at certain time (approximate). Scientists conclude that it is the first sign of a sense of transcendence. But those remains do not tell you directly how and why that activity started. So scientists make their own interpretations and create their own representations. They can only offer hypotheses. But, secondly, those hypotheses cannot be verified in reality because there is no reality. There is no reality because it is a reality which is not present. It belongs to the past. So there is an ontological abysm which is impossible to overcome. Maybe with a time machine…

Another typical example is the "Neolithic Revolution". Using the same "historical sources", archaeological remains, the historians offer different and contradictory conclusions about the causes (Why and How) of that "revolution". So there are several explanatory theories which are merely hypotheses.

Regarding the "advantages" obtained by the Western tribes, there is not only one universal assessment. It depends on the meaning of "advantages", and on the meaning of "disadvantages". Different people have different points of view and values (material and moral ones), similarly, different cultures and civilizations have different approaches and values and different concepts of "advantages". Again, we have to avoid ethnocentrism.

By the way, many of those supposed "advantages" implied the payment of an extremely high and destructive price regarding not only our own culture, but especially concerning to the aggression against other cultures and to the destruction of the natural environment.

Gwydion,

Most historians have defined Western colonialism/imperialism (19th and 20th centuries) as a higher stage in the development of western capitalism. Most historians agree that the high degree of complexity shown by that process allows it to be totally distinguished from any other expansion process occurred in the past, and also that every historical process is unique and distinct because the historical circumstances, the social structure and the human component are totally different. The fact is that Historiography always warns against that kind of meaningless comparisons.

But, obviously, you are free to make your own weird comparisons. For example, a comparison between Hitler and Genghis Khan may be fun but it is an absurdity (from a Historiographical point of view).

Coconuts,

Many sociologists and historians, who are not leftists, have used, and use today, many theoretical and methodical tools established by theoreticians who was considered as leftists. What is the problem? Most of them are excellent thinkers. And there were, and there are, excellent thinkers considered as rightists. I like some ideas from Foucault related to Structuralism, but I am not a "Structuralist".

I am talking about different matters. Said's analysis of Western Orientalism is not based on Western ideological principles but on the result of combining two ingredients: firstly, personal experience and roots as Palestinian (Oriental). Secondly, a deep knowledge about Western civilizations (including theoretical works by "leftists" and other works by thinkers with another ideology, rightists or independent).

Edward Said's books are not the Bible, they are not absolute truths. But they are clever and well-founded works. I wrote that they are recommendable as a starting point.

You should not use Western ideological prejudices if you want to study and to understand other cultures and civilizations, among other reasons because the concepts of Left and Right as political ideologies, and as way of thinking about human life, do not exist in those other cultures and civilizations (they are present nowadays as imports, or grafts, from Western culture. An effect of colonialism).

Marc,

There is no "anti-Americanism" in my words, whatever that expression means. If some people think so, they have not understood anything I have written. But I am not stupid. I know well that fanatic nationalism is like a thick blindfold. For this reason, critical thinking is necessary. Facts and behaviours cannot be denied or disguised in the name of fanatical nationalism and patriotism based on ignorance, vileness and immorality.

I do not need luck, because I am not trying to convince anyone. People will draw their own conclusions. We all are adults here. Surviving in a forum is not relevant to me. There are many other really important things in my life.

So you admit you don't know what an independent source is then give us two paragraphs on it? For historians it usually means peer review.

The fact is that Historiography always warns against that kind of meaningless comparisons.

They aren't necessarily meaningless in terms of, say, moral philosophy

And your posts appear to be filled with moralising and value judgements. There looks to be a certain amount of political content. What you are writing about is not just historiography and I am guessing that what is motivating people to reply in this thread isn't necessarily the historiographical content of your posts.

Many sociologists and historians, who are not leftists, have used, and use today, many theoretical and methodical tools established by theoreticians who was considered as leftists. What is the problem? Most of them are excellent thinkers. And there were, and there are, excellent thinkers considered as rightists. I like some ideas from Foucault related to Structuralism, but I am not a "Structuralist".

I think it is useful to know because to believe that, for example, political and moral considerations did not influence these thinkers in the construction and application of their theoretical and methodological tools is not credible.

And exactly WHAT does this all have to do with Wargaming?

Does it mean I have to rename my new Arab-Israeli Wars Rules to something like Much Maligned Pan African Nations vs The Zionists Wars Rules???

Give is a REST guys. If I want to read politics I'll use my Fox New App. If I want Fake News I'll watch CNN. When I come to TMP I'd like to read about GAMING. Good Grief.

It has nothing to do with wargaming.

It has something to do with a central facet of the war in Europe and the Nazi regime of 1933 to 1945.

It also has a more than passing interest in a current political leader, who can be readily described as polarising. The officiating crew appear to have deemed that does not infringe the rules on maintaining separation between the historical boards and the ultramodern board, while modern political discussion is, at least as I understood it, not allowed.

The members of faculty currently engaged in the thread have certainly moved onto topics that sit somewhat distant from your average site dedicated to miniatures and gaming. They do not seem to have breached any TMP specific protocols and the discourse does not appear to have tipped over into an intellectual fistfight.

You know when you walk round the supermarket and see something incongruous, like a frozen chicken stuffed onto a shelf on the vegetable aisle, or a bottle or carton of milk in with the yoghurts? It's a bit like that. Only if it's bugging you in the supermarket you can move the item to where it would normally be found, whereas here you can't.

The stock answer is normally you're not required to participate in any thread that you don't wish to, likewise as long as threads stay within admittedly broad guidelines and steer clear of the few editorial landmines scattered around the place, they're free to be utilised or ignored as the membership chooses.

Gary

Murvihill,

Yes, I know what you are talking about. In my country, and in other countries, historians do not use the expression "independent sources" with the meaning of "peer review". We do not use the expression "peer review"either, we usually use the expression "arbitration". It is used mainly by scientific journals, and especially in the case of publication of articles by unknown or novel scientists. Arbitration is sometimes criticised due to possible excess of bias or subjectivity in the part of some peers, or because of accusations of serving certain interests (economic, ideological, commercial, editorial, and so on). Most books published by reputed or well-known historians, related to important hypotheses or theories about historical processes, do not need "peer review" or "arbitration", or they use it as a symbolic customary courtesy.

Other procedure is the "scientific community review or acceptance "or "historiographical community opinion or acceptance". But these reviews are made after historians have offered their hypotheses in books, journals or in other means. Those reviews are related to how certain hypotheses or theories are received within the academic community.

But the scientific community acceptance or the peer review have nothing to do with the different steps which compose and characterise the scientific method applied to Social Sciences in general and Historiography in particular. A work may have implemented perfectly the scientific method but it may be rejected for other reasons.
And, what is most important, these reviews have nothing to do with the epistemological limitations of historical knowledge.

Coconuts,

Even moral philosophy has to deal with very different conceptions of time, space, human being, human life and human society. You have to be extremely cautious if you want to make comparisons between historical processes which are rooted in different times, geographical areas and different cultures and civilizations. I think people should avoid certain comparisons because they will be affected by prejudices and ethnocentrism, and they will reach meaningless and bizarre conclusions. But people are free to do what they want.

People are not machines. Obviously their ideological context and ideological choices have influence on their approaches. But that does not mean that their works are necessarily fallacies or manipulations. An historian may recognize and may use methodological advances created by other historians from a different ideological context. It is not incompatible.

For example, some historians from Annales School who were not Marxists developed new methodological procedures, especially concerning to historical sources. Then many Marxist historians adopted those procedures because they were extremely useful. But they continued being Marxists. You can learn from Leftists authors, from Rightists authors and from independent authors.

Lee494,

Sometimes a particular topic develops into other matters, more or less related to the original discussion. Sometimes is unavoidable. Starfury Rider has explained it perfectly.

It has nothing to do with wargaming. But, if it is any consolation to you, I am an occasional wargamer although I prefer Napoleonic rather than WWII.

Ruchel wrote

Gwydion,

Most historians have defined Western colonialism/imperialism (19th and 20th centuries) as a higher stage in the development of western capitalism. Most historians agree that the high degree of complexity shown by that process allows it to be totally distinguished from any other expansion process occurred in the past, and also that every historical process is unique and distinct because the historical circumstances, the social structure and the human component are totally different. The fact is that Historiography always warns against that kind of meaningless comparisons.

But, obviously, you are free to make your own weird comparisons. For example, a comparison between Hitler and Genghis Khan may be fun but it is an absurdity (from a Historiographical point of view).

I am content with the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's view that'Colonialism is not a modern phenomenon.'

I agree that the desire to paint Western European cultures as uniquely bad has meant that politicised historians have attempted to create a supposed paradigm shift in the nature of colonialism around the 17th century, being the beginning of modern western expansionism.

Maritime development and industrial growth made it more wide ranging and successful than most previous colonialism but it is at least debatable whether there was really a qualitiative shift. Being invaded, being controlled by a foreign interloper, being forced to change your language and religion is probably much the same in the 7th century AD as the 19th.

The Arab conquests compare very neatly with the frame of European colonialism as it happens -the 'civilising mission' of European colonial expansion easily matched by the proselytising mission of the Islamic Conquests.

The reality for the conquered cultures was similar in both cases: economic exploitation and cultural destruction.

Gwydion,

I have never written that "Colonialism is a modern phenomenon". Please, read carefully my previous posts. I have stated that Western colonialism/imperialism during the 19th and 20th centuries was a different process, with a distinct complexity and totally different methods and aims. In fact that process has a distinct historiographical treatment and study as a higher stage within the development of Western advanced capitalism. So, the "qualitative shift" is total.

In short, there is consensus among academic community (true historians) that Western colonialism during the 19th and 20th centuries is a specific process within the frame of the development of Western capitalism. So it has nothing to do with other previous processes. But people are free to make bizarre and childish comparisons. People who know nothing about historiographical methods and procedures are prone to create their own "historical" fantasy and anachronistic comparisons.

It is evident that you do not know or understand anything about the Islamic conquest. You just apply your ethnocentric prejudices and misconceptions to a process which you do not know anything about. The "civilising mission" that you talk about was secondary for Western colonialism, or a despicable excuse in order to justify its real motivation and aims. It has nothing to do with religious "proselytizing".

Regarding Islamic "economic exploitation", please study something about the Islamic economic pacts and capitulations related to conquered areas, and the conventions or agreements known as "Suhl" and "Ahd".

The Islamic military contingents were rather small in relation with indigenous population. Those contingents had not the technical (or technological) tools or advances needed for a complete capitalist economic exploitation. They had not such an intention. And they had not an established economic programme. There was not a strict hierarchical relationship between metropolis and colonies, because the conquered areas were not colonies and they were not considered as such. And the centres of power were diffuse. In short, any comparison is absurd and anachronistic. Those small contingents had different mentality and aims, and, in most situations, they maintained the indigenous economic structures or added a few modifications.

Regarding "cultural destruction", the Islamic contingents had nomadic roots and many indigenous cultural characteristics and traditions were adopted. In fact, in most situations, Islamic expansion resulted in a cultural symbiosis. For example, the "Fiqh", theory and practice of laws (and jurisprudence), contained, and contains today, many indigenous customs and traditions which predate Islamic expansion. I repeat: many of those laws and traditions, including those which nowadays Western people consider barbaric and reprehensible, are pre-Islamic, that is, they predate Islamic religion.

This discussion goes far beyond the limits of this topic and of this forum. I will not waste any more time explaining things that should have been studied at school.

Ruchel you rant for page after page and your point is precisely what? Doesn't require another ten paragraph answer. Please distill it down to one summary sentence. Thanks!

And then answer me this question. For years I and others living in the United States of America have been called Americans. Which is also patently wrong since people from South American and even countries like Canada are also "Americans". So why is there no great outcry against this??

Cheers!

Good point !!!!!

No it isn't.

Read this.

link

Ruchel wrote

Gwydion,

I have never written that "Colonialism is a modern phenomenon". Please, read carefully my previous posts. I have stated that Western colonialism/imperialism during the 19th and 20th centuries was a different process, with a distinct complexity and totally different methods and aims. In fact that process has a distinct historiographical treatment and study as a higher stage within the development of Western advanced capitalism. So, the "qualitative shift" is total.

Oddly enough, I am quite capable of reading what you write.
Which is why I made the clear point, you are wrong. I consider the distinction to be one without real difference, dug out in the mines of academe to cultivate a niche and ensure tenure. You dragged in the distiction whereas I was and continue to discuss colonialism you seek the straw man of 'Western advanced colonialism'. Good luck with that.

In short, there is consensus among academic community (true historians)

I presume this (as you repeat it every time you bother to reply to me) is supposed to be some sort of killer put down.
Honestly, it isn't.
I am quite confident of my 'true' historical abilities, while your unsubtle ad hominem attacks reveal the weakness of your approach.

Historians have frequently exhibited almost total consensus about many things, right up until the point they didn't any more.

This discussion goes far beyond the limits of this topic and of this forum. I will not waste any more time explaining things that should have been studied at school.

Thank goodness for that!

This might be relevant though:

link

No it isn't.

Well then I'll just go with I'm Yankee !

Interesting link Coconuts …

Regarding that article, Pan-Arabism was a modern political ideology modelled on Western nationalist ideologies such as Pan-Germanism (or Pan-Germanicism) and Pan-Slavism. Pan-Arabism was especially favoured by Gamal Adbel Nasser, the well-known Egyptian president. By the way, his ideology was based on Marxist influence and not on "Arab" or Islamic roots.

Pan-Arabism was a failure as a political project, precisely because of the lack of any national link between those different countries. Islamic Arab components are only a part within the cultural complexity which characterise those countries. For example, Morocco shares some cultural characteristics with Lebanon, especially religious characteristics and linguistic ones (derived from religion), but many other cultural and ethnic characteristics are totally different.

Arab League is an inaccurate name or denomination. The common link between the members is a religious one (Islam and its sacred language, Arabic). All other cultural characteristics are totally different. If you visit Mauritania and then visit Lebanon you will notice the radical differences. International Institutions avoid religious names or denominations and prefer secular ones. It is more comprehensible and acceptable to Western standards to use the inaccurate name "Arab League" instead of "Islamic League" or "Islamic culture League".

In conclusion, this quote by the anthropologist (expert on Egypt and Iran) Niloofar Haeri, is very instructive and enlightening:

Historically, Egyptians have considered themselves as distinct from 'Arabs' and even at present rarely do they make that identification in casual contexts; il-'arab [the Arabs] as used by Egyptians refers mainly to the inhabitants of the Gulf states… Egypt has been both a leader of pan-Arabism and a site of intense resentment towards that ideology. Egyptians had to be made, often forcefully, into "Arabs" [during the Nasser era] because they did not historically identify themselves as such. Egypt was self-consciously a nation not only before pan-Arabism but also before becoming a colony of the British Empire. Its territorial continuity since ancient times, its unique history as exemplified in its pharaonic past and later on its Coptic language and culture, had already made Egypt into a nation for centuries. Egyptians saw themselves, their history, culture and language as specifically Egyptian and not "Arab."

From an article about Pan-Arabism (on Wikipedia, the same source you have used for the previous article, even though Wikipedia is often an unreliable source. But the quote by Niloofar Haeri belongs to a published work which has nothing to do with Wikipedia).

No matter … I'm still calling most of the denizens of the Mid East and North Africa – Arabs. Save for the Turks & Persians … But they are close …

Like Italians & Greeks … I'm 80 Italian … so …

Only about 7% Mid East/North African.