Muslims are peaceful people

[Doug]

DeadCanDance is of course correct that we must not make up figures from mid-air. Neither must we cherry-pick actual polls, the response to which can often depend on the way a question is framed, or the immediate context in which it is asked.

So, are Muslims just like other religious groups, who also have their tiny, unrepresentative minorities? Or, with respect to terrorism, and the paranoid world view that underlies it, are they more like the Germans, with a significant militant minority, and a majority who share, albeit with some ambiguity, some of that minority's grievances and world view, constituting a pool of potential support for that minority in the future?

We could start by asking how Muslims are getting along in democratic countries in the West.

So let's factor into DeadCanDance's poll, some other polls, such as:

This poll.

And this one.

And this one.

And this one.

And this one.

And this one. (Be sure to look at the figures for Muslims in Jordan who have "confidence" in Osama Bin Laden. It's good news! A year before the current poll was taken, 60% of them had confidence in him -- now only 24% do. Of course, it doesn't say whether this fall in confidence is because he hasn't carried out any more sucessful attacks on the US.)

Of course, this is just Muslims in Britain, and Jordan. Is it really true, as DeadCanDance claims, that worldwide, the number of Muslims who support attacks on civilians is just a "statistical blip"?

Let's look more closely at the poll he cites. You can click on his link and read the data yourself, which he has not done very closely. He says

Even in the most radicalized of arab countries (the subject of this poll), overwhelming majorities think the killing of civilians is an abomination against the tenets of Islam.

When it comes to killing civilians in the united states or europe, even in these radicalized arab countries, barely 5% or 8% of their citizens think killing american or european civilians is ever justified.

And this is a poll taken only in radicalized muslim countries. If you included polling for all muslims world wide, including the moderate muslims in asia, africa, and north america, I think you would find those who support killing innocent civilians to barely register as a statistical blip

I wonder if he actually read the document. For one thing, only two of the four countries are Arab. And neither Egypt nor Morroco are particularly "radical", compared to, say, Syria or Libya. And the phrase "abomination against Islam" seems to be his own -- wishful thinking, perhaps.

In any case, I wondered where the "barely 5% or 8%" he quotes came from.

One relevant question was put like this:

Groups that use violence against civilians, such as al-Qaeda, are violating the principles of Islam. Islam opposes the use of such violence. And the percentage disagreeing with this statement in each country was:

Morocco.....19
Egypt..........7
Pakistan.....35
Indonesia...21

But if we look on page 14, we can find the apparent source of DeadCanDance's "5% or 8%" figure. It turns out that "5%" is an approximation of the percentage of Muslims who approve the attacks, and "8%" is an approximation of the additional number who have "mixed feelings" about them. So it's 5% AND 8%, not 5% or 8%.

I'll quote the relevant summarizing paragraph, on the 15th page (page 13 of the actual document):

Exceedingly small numbers in all countries—ranging from 3 percent to 7 percent—expressed approval for attacks on either American or European civilians. Respondents were also offered the option of saying they had mixed feelings about such attacks, though relatively small numbers chose it: 2 percent to 8 percent in three of the countries and 13-14 percent in Pakistan for Europeans and Americans. The minorities who approved of or had mixed feelings about such attacks were also largest in Pakistan: 18 percent said they either approved (5%) or had mixed feelings (13%) about attacks on Americans and 20 percent either approved (6%) or had mixed feelings (14%) about attacks on Europeans. In Morocco, this number reached 15 percent for attacks against Americans (7% approve, 8% mixed), and 13 percent for Europeans (6% approve, 7% mixed). Those approving in Indonesia and Egypt were even fewer.

Now the good people who do these polls have, I am sure, all the approved opinions on this issue, so they spin the figures a bit to hide the negatives.

But read this paragraph and the charts on the preceding page carefully and you will see that the percentages of Muslims who approve, or have mixed feelings, about attacks on American or European civilians range from a low of 6% in Egypt, through 11% in Indonesia, 15% in Morroco, and 18% in Pakistan.

If you don't want to read the whole 28-page document, it is summarized in
this link.

The linked-to document is interesting because it also summarizes the results of what seems to be another poll, also asking about attacks on civilians.

Again, it is true that large majorities in each of Muslims in these four countries, when asked directly if they approve of attacks on civilians, say they do not.

But note that significant minorities say they do, to one degree or another -- The percentages believing that attacks on civilians are either "justified," "strongly justified" or "weakly justified" in the four countries are:

Morocco: 27%
Egypt: 21%
Pakistan:13%
Indonesia:11%

As proof of how framing a question can elicit variant responses, note that the first sentence in the following section shows 88% of Egyptians disapproving of attacks by groups that use violence against civilians. Go to the link and note that when the question is framed as to whether such attacks are justified (weakly, strongly, in the middle), the percentage disapproving of them drops.

There is strong disapproval of attacks by “groups that use violence against civilians, such as al Qaeda.” Large majorities in Egypt (88%), Indonesia (65%) and Morocco (66%) agree that such groups “are violating the principles of Islam.” Pakistanis are divided, however, with many not answering.

But there is also uncertainty about whether al Qaeda actually conducts such attacks. On average less than one in four believes al Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical—only 3 percent think al Qaeda did it. There is no consensus about who is responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington; the most common answer is “don’t know.”

Most significantly, large majorities approve of many of al Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.”

Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”

But this does not appear to mean that the publics in these Muslim countries want to isolate themselves from the larger world. Asked how they feel about “the world becoming more connected through greater economic trade and faster communication,” majorities in all countries say it is a good thing (average 75%). While wary of Western values, overall 67 percent agree that “a democratic political system” is a good way to govern their country and 82 percent agree that in their country “people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs.”

So ... some good news, and some bad news. The good news is that many -- a majority -- Muslims still want democracy, whatever that means to them, and a basic system of human rights. The bad news is that there is a significant minority -- not at all a "statistical blip" -- who, in effect, do not. And even the majority are prey to ridiculous paranoid irrational beliefs.

And in Britain, where large numbers of Muslims have settled, many reject Western values. And these tend to be younger Muslims, who were born and raised in the UK.

So, a very worrying picture.

To bring it back to the "Germans" analogy: in national elections 1928 the National Socialist German Workers Party got 2.6% of the vote. A "statistical blip" some might call it. But many Germans had burning resentments against their former enemies, and social and economic turmoil in Germany continued unabated.

Four years later the Nazis were the largest party in Germany.

 

[Larkinn]

Its funny when people say "you shouldn't judge them all by a few."
my response- how many do you know?
They dont know many personally so it shuts them up.
People need to read the Quran and not just say they have. Islam is a dangerous religion and those who make excuses for the group are just as dangerous as the terrorists.

How many one personally knows is irrelevant. Ancedotal evidence doesn't mean very much, especially when dealing with a huge group of people.

 

[Annie]

I don't know if on this thread or not, but someone said that up to 5% of Mulims being sympathetic to extremists was insignificant. Not exactly. There are over 1 billion Muslims, what's your definition of 'insignificant'?

 

[DeadCanDance]

Doug,

The table of interest to me was how many eyptians, pakistanis, and indonesians approved of killing american citizens. It was in the range of 5 to 8% as I recall.

You could find 5 to 8% of republicans on message board who approve of killing iraqi civilians. How many times on message boards have we heard neocons say we should just get medieval on Iraq, and turn the place into a parking lot?

Now, this poll was taken in arab countries known for extremism. As such, I don't think 5 to 8% is even representative of muslims worldwide. Most muslims on the planet live in africa, and asia, with a good deal in north america and europe.

I think the vast majority of muslims, christians, and jews are decent people.

But, do continue to alienate every minority in the country from the GOP with intolerance, if you must.

 

[Doug]

<b>DeadCanDance:</b> I actually happen to agree with you that "Islam" in the abstract is not the enemy. I also agree that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. I think that in the long run, Muslims will become modern civilized people who pay no attention to the barbaric parts of their holy books, and who adopt the values of the Enlightenment -- just as Christians have done.

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the United States elected a Muslim president -- provided she was a conservative.

However, the situation is unfortunately more complicated than simply saying the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Neither were the majority of Germans Nazis. But there was enough support and sympathy and toleration for what the Nazis stood for -- a strong assertive Germany -- among the non-Nazis, and enough division and confusion and weakness among the anti-Nazis -- that a particular configuration of events -- the Great Depression -- allowed the Nazi minority to come to the head of the German people.

This seems to me to be analogous in some ways to the situation facing Muslims today. They need a strong leadership, democratically elected, to deal with their problems and assert Muslim interests in the world. This leadership will probably be Islamic in some sense. We have to work to make sure it is not of that strain of militant radical Islam which wants to destroy us.

 

[Diuretic]

However, the situation is unfortunately more complicated than simply saying the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Neither were the majority of Germans Nazis. But there was enough support and sympathy and toleration for what the Nazis stood for -- a strong assertive Germany -- among the non-Nazis, and enough division and confusion and weakness among the anti-Nazis -- that a particular configuration of events -- the Great Depression -- allowed the Nazi minority to come to the head of the German people.

This seems to me to be analogous in some ways to the situation facing Muslims today. They need a strong leadership, democratically elected, to deal with their problems and assert Muslim interests in the world. This leadership will probably be Islamic in some sense. We have to work to make sure it is not of that strain of militant radical Islam which wants to destroy us.

Does the analogy stand up when it's pointed out that the National Socialist German Workers Party was a political party and not a religion? And for the objectors, let's not confuse the issue by trying to argue that Nazism or Fuehrer-worship is akin to a religion (I agree with the point but in the context of the discussion it's a bit of a red herring).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does the analogy stand up when it's pointed out that the National Socialist German Workers Party was a political party and not a religion? And for the objectors, let's not confuse the issue by trying to argue that Nazism or Fuehrer-worship is akin to a religion (I agree with the point but in the context of the discussion it's a bit of a red herring).

Except that Islam teaches that the religion IS the government.

 

[Diuretic]

Except that Islam teaches that the religion IS the government.

In the West we've had a secular form of government for so long we forget the historic links between government (usually in the form of monarchy) and the church. They mutually reinforced each other for many hundreds of years. I think it was the Enlightenment period which saw the separation beginning to get a foothold.

It's true that some states argue for a close alignment of Islam, usually in the form of Sharia, with government. But that's simply an argument for theocracy. There are plenty of secular governments in countries with very large Muslim populations. Indonesia has a secular government and the largest Muslim population in the world, so again I'm not sure if "Islam" teaches that the religion is the government.

 

[DeadCanDance]

<b>DeadCanDance:</b> I actually happen to agree with you that "Islam" in the abstract is not the enemy. I also agree that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. I think that in the long run, Muslims will become modern civilized people who pay no attention to the barbaric parts of their holy books, and who adopt the values of the Enlightenment -- just as Christians have done.

In fact, it wouldn't bother me if the United States elected a Muslim president -- provided she was a conservative.

However, the situation is unfortunately more complicated than simply saying the majority of Muslims are not terrorists. Neither were the majority of Germans Nazis. But there was enough support and sympathy and toleration for what the Nazis stood for -- a strong assertive Germany -- among the non-Nazis, and enough division and confusion and weakness among the anti-Nazis -- that a particular configuration of events -- the Great Depression -- allowed the Nazi minority to come to the head of the German people.

This seems to me to be analogous in some ways to the situation facing Muslims today. They need a strong leadership, democratically elected, to deal with their problems and assert Muslim interests in the world. This leadership will probably be Islamic in some sense. We have to work to make sure it is not of that strain of militant radical Islam which wants to destroy us.

Conflating the religion of islam, with terrorism doesn't help america. It hurts us. I don't care what you read on some rightwing blogs. Islam does not advocate offensive wars to subdue the planet. Anymore than christianity does. Trying to make this into a war between religions alienates the very people we need to help us: moderate and reasonable muslims.

On a secondary note, it also hurts the republican party. Muslim americans were once a fairly reliable voting bloc for the GOP. Muslim americans are largely small business euntrepeneurs, doctors, and engineers. With conservative social values. An ideal demographic for the GOP. The GOP and its followers have alienated them for a generation, with all the talk of evil Islam.

 

[Edward]

The do it to intimidate a demograph ...people who are pro choice.

My point is, they do this in Christ's name but that sure as Hell isn't anything I ever took away from Christ's teachings.

And to answer the question for you that you did not answer, the number of violent, radical Muslims is around 10%. That means roughly 90% aren't misinterpretting the Koran to justify committing murder.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shooting down like the dogs they are extremist militant muslims where found. They mean me harm. Why condemn those who don't?

No offense but you are a moron if you believe that 10% of Muslims are radicals because that equals about 160 million Muslims. I am sure you mean something like 1% or lower are radicals which would would still place it at 16 million. Putting that aside (1%) To place it as high as you do would be outrageous. To think that 160 million Muslims are radicals or terrorists is idiotic. You obviously have trouble understanding that 160 million Muslims do not interpret the Qu'ran to justify committing murder or simply misspoke. If you believe that this many Muslims are radicals than you are a fucking moron but if you mis-spoke than at least you have more brains than I have given you credit for.

 

[Doug]

Diuretic (and others): My analogy between radical Islamists, and the rest of the Muslim world, on the one hand; and the Nazis, and the rest of the German population, on the other -- was only an analogy. Some things similar, some things different.

It is quite correct to note that we are dealing here with a religious movement which sees control of the state and society as flowing from religious injunctions -- quite different from the German situation, for sure.

Just as important, if not more so, is the fact that whereas the Germans felt that they had grievances stemming from a harsh peace treaty which was the outcome of a war they started, they were an advanced nation, with no reason to be ashamed of their economic, scientific and cultural achievements. And had the Nazis been defeated in their bid for power -- or removed later by an Allied military intervention, say after they re-occupied the Rhineland, as Churchill wanted to do -- Germany could have been quickly set back on the path to economic growth, although the Great Depression did complicate things. But the Muslim world, especially its Arab component, suffers from genuine, deep, structural economic and social backwardness. So the problem is much more profound than the "German question" was.

However, the similarity part of my analogy is, I think, useful.

The problem most people make when arguing about Islam and terrorism -- are they or are they not terrorists? -- is that they use a hugely-oversimplified model of 'support'.

The assumption seems to be that there can only be two categories: terrorist, and non-terrorist.

The "pro-Islamic" side says: look, only a tiny fraction of Muslims are members of Al Queda, just a few thousand out of a billion people; or, only 5&#37; or 8% support attacks on civilians.

The "Islam-is-the-enemy" side tend to point to the history of Islam as a military-proselytizing religion, and to many scary passages in the Koran; and to the popularity among various groups of Muslims of attacks on the US; and to the alienation felt by many young Muslims in Europe.

But it is better if we think of Muslims as spread out on a spectrum, not grouped into two binary polar opposites.

On one end of the spectrum are those Muslims who support Al Queda and allied groups through their active membership. On the other end are those Muslims, secular and otherwise, who are the absolute conscious enemies of the Islamists. They might include various sorts of traditionalist religious sects, and also secular Muslims. (I know some secular far Left Iraqis, for example, who loathe all fundamentalist Muslims with an intensity far higher than your Hollywood Lefty loathes Pat Robertson.)

But the great majority of Muslims are spread out between these two extremes. Many of them seem to feel that the radicals are articulating legitimate Muslim grievances, even if they disagree with the methods used to express their anger. This is absolutely standard in situations where radicals are engaged in violent conflict against the authorities: look at the Catholic Irish attitude to the IRA.

Even the nature of those grievances probably varies from person to person: the natural resentment of the formerly colonized against their colonizers; the seizure and current occupation of Arab lands by European colonists; disgust at the sexual filth and authority-defiance that Western culture is bringing into their societies; fear of the emancipation of women; guilt-and-anger at the backwardness of what once were very advanced civilizations; anger at Western propping up of the autocrats and kleptocrats, so that we can get their oil.

Anyway, the real question is: how do we respond to this situation? If a country, including a Muslim country, can experience a few decades of economic growth (and concommitant social development), it will develop a powerful middle class that will want to live in a normal, peaceful society. Political change will not happen smoothly and peacefully, necessarily. But the basis for a normal democratic capitalist society will be there -- as has already happened in Iran.

Our problem is how, in many varied situations, to appease legitimate Muslim grievances, ease the transition to political democracy without putting the crazies in power, not give the kiss-of-death to our friends by too much open support ... not an easy task, given the great variety within the Muslim world.

 

[Diuretic]

Anyway, the real question is: how do we respond to this situation? If a country, including a Muslim country, can experience a few decades of economic growth (and concommitant social development), it will develop a powerful middle class that will want to live in a normal, peaceful society. Political change will not happen smoothly and peacefully, necessarily. But the basis for a normal democratic capitalist society will be there -- as has already happened in Iran.

Our problem is how, in many varied situations, to appease legitimate Muslim grievances, ease the transition to political democracy without putting the crazies in power, not give the kiss-of-death to our friends by too much open support ... not an easy task, given the great variety within the Muslim world.

We - the West - have had a fairly constant track record from the end of WWI up until right now of interfering in the Middle East and kicking out what we considered "unfriendly" regimes and replacing them with "friendly" regimes. The latest example is Iraq.

Nice sig line by the way, Al Capone I believe

And how can be blame the average citizen of those countries for being anti-West when we've usually installed a dictator after overthrowing a democratically elected government? Exhibit P1 - the overthrow of Mossadeq and the installation of Pahlavi in Iran.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We - the West - have had a fairly constant track record from the end of WWI up until right now of interfering in the Middle East and kicking out what we considered "unfriendly" regimes and replacing them with "friendly" regimes. The latest example is Iraq.

Nice sig line by the way, Al Capone I believe

And how can be blame the average citizen of those countries for being anti-West when we've usually installed a dictator after overthrowing a democratically elected government? Exhibit P1 - the overthrow of Mossadeq and the installation of Pahlavi in Iran.

Provide a couple more exhibits. Or is that the only one? You forgot to mention when Eisenhower stopped Britain and France from seizing the Suez Canal, ohh wait, that doesn't fit your pattern.

Perhaps we are responsible for Hassad, Quadifi, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the Lebanese Civil War? I know, we installed Jordon's King and the Saudi Royal Family? We secretly shipped thousands of Jews to Palestine and created the plan for Israel?

 

[Diuretic]

Provide a couple more exhibits. Or is that the only one? You forgot to mention when Eisenhower stopped Britain and France from seizing the Suez Canal, ohh wait, that doesn't fit your pattern.

Perhaps we are responsible for Hassad, Quadifi, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the Lebanese Civil War? I know, we installed Jordon's King and the Saudi Royal Family? We secretly shipped thousands of Jews to Palestine and created the plan for Israel?

I don't have a pattern, I'm more than happy to be rebutted.

On the Suez Crisis. I remember - and I do remember it because I was a kid at the time - that the Brits and the French were responsible for the debacle. From memory it gave Sir Anthony Eden much grief. But you'll note I was careful to use the term "the West" and to say "we" in reference. I wasn't taking a shot at US foreign policy but the behaviour of the West because in the context of the discussion that's the bloc that has sought to get control of strategic interests in the Middle East since WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

 

[Doug]

Diuretic: I believe it is safe to say that Al Capone was not a liberal. I think he had a better understanding of human nature than liberals possess (today's liberals, anyway), so that puts him more in our camp. And as I recall he had a proper attitude towards the income tax, and I believe he was quite sound on the question of Communism vs Americanism -- there is an alleged death-bed utterance on the subject which we always see being quoted. However, I think most of us conservatives agree that his respect for the rule of law was weak, and his attitude to private property rights left much to be desired. But no one's perfect. In any case, I did not know the distinguished source of my signature line. Thanks.

Yes, there is no doubt that the West has ripped off, and ripped up, much of the rest of the world, the Middle East not excepted. This is not because we are more savage than everyone else, but because we had the technology. And the social organization.

What continues to amaze me is how the West, as it threw off the blinders of superstition and began to embrace a rational account of the world, also began to develop -- slowly and unevenly, for sure! -- a more humane attitude towards its own ordinary people, and later, towards everyone. I would like to believe that this is an automatic process, an inevitable accompaniment of science and democracy. And it only took a few hundred years.

You can certainly fault the US for things like the overthrow of Mossadeqh. I personally believe that the main motivation of American foreign policy in this period was the fear of Communism, and the willingness to do anything to keep it from spreading. Of course, less noble material motivations no doubt played their part, but note that where there were strong democratic, even leftwing, forces which were reliably anti-Communist -- as in Europe after the war -- the Americans did not hesitate to support them.

Where we did things that we now can admit were dubious was where there were no such forces, or where they were weak. In Iran, the fear was that the Tudeh Party -- a strong, indigenous but pro-Soviet party -- with the USSR just over the border -- would eventually take power from the ineffectual Mossadeqh. So we allied with and supported the strongest opponents of the Communists, who were also opponents of democracy and of the sort of secular nationalism represented by Mossadeqh. We have paid a high price for doing this, in the eyes of the Iranian masses. I can well believe that we might have found another way.

American capitalists have learned that democracy does not automatically equal social revolution, although this belief was taken for granted among Euroepan rulers until the 20th Century, and late in the 20th Century for many.

So what "Uncle Sam really wants" is stable, prosperous, free-trading governments, ideally democratic -- not because Uncle Sam is a saint, but because, empirically, those are the ones that have stability. Where he really gets his way, that's what tends to emerge.

Witness Korea -- we supported a brutal rightwing military dictatorship there, against people who were genuinely indigenous nationalists. I suppose that for some years after the end of the Korean War, you could make out a good case that "our dictator" was just as bad, if not worse, than "their dictator". But looking at the two Koreas in historical perspective today, who can argue that it would have been better for the Korean masses had Uncle Sam let the Communist revolution triumph over the whole peninsula?

You can make a similar argument for Taiwan.

In Latin America, the same argument can be made. Although the 1973 coup in Chile was an almost-totally indigenous affair, we were certainly with the coup-makers in spirit. Christopher Hitchens recently wrote, in a retrospective on that bloody event, that it would been a shame to see the emergence of an Eastern European state in Latin America -- and that seemed to be the alternative to many, including quite a few Chileans. And look at Chile today. (Critics of American foreign policy on Chile never like to acknowledge that our pressure played a role in the peaceful transition to democracy there.)

I myself think that the United States could have pursued a somewhat different foreign policy -- a kind of retrospective "Bush doctrine" -- and could have taken more chances with dodgy leftwing regimes.

But that view benefits from a lot of hindsight. At the time -- especially in the early fifties, before the Sino-Soviet split and Hungary-- the Soviets looked to a lot of people, and not just to us paranoid conservatives, as an unstoppable force. I think you are about my age and perhaps will remember this.

This wasn't even a difference between liberals and conservatives then. Eisenhower's foreign policy did not differ from Kennedy's -- except, perhaps, Kennedy was a bit more hawkish. (Many liberals had had a lot of illusions in Communism prior to WWII -- but afterwards, they shed them, contra the ridiculous Ann Coulter.)

What I find ironic today is that many American liberals seem to be evolving into pre-Cold War Taftite isolationists, whereas it is the conservatives -- or at least a wing of them -- who are talking about addressing the social conditions that breed terror.

We can quarrel about whether or not the 82nd Airborne is the best midwife of history to change those social conditions, but I think the conservatives in this case are right on the money.

 

[Diuretic]

Good post Doug.

My original point was that the West - and I was thinking of Britain and France and their carving up of Mesopotamia after the Ottomans were kicked out - interfered in the Middle East for their own economic ends. We can dress it up as much as we like but the West - we, us, our governments - have always put our own interests first. Even my little country bullied poor little East Timor over the Timor Gap oil fields, we bullied them out of billions of dollars so that our companies would give us the royalties from the oil they discovered rather than to the East Timorese who need that money more than we do. Our government is to be condemned in the strongest possible manner for that piece of vicious foreign policy

 

[Doug]

Diuretic: Are you talking about the Netherlands, with respect to East Timor? I know almost nothing about that situation -- not just the oil aspect, but the whole struggle for independence.

I do know that it is often the case that choice with respect to the natural assets of a small country has not been between their being used for the benefit of the wealthy owners of a foreign company, or for the local people, but between their being used for the benefit of the wealthy owners of a foreign company, or for the local elite.

The form of capitalism we have seen in the Third World has unfortunately been a very primitive, static, pre-Industrial Revolution form of capitalism, where a large section of the economy is nationalized, and then becomes the private preserve of the well-connected. The economy stagnates, and very bad habits are encouraged among the population: rent-seeking, rather than entrepreneurship.

I think this was the case in Indonesia as a whole, although I don't know about East Timor.

I believe that the Big Question of the 21st Century is: can the type of capitalism (and corresponding social and political system) that we have evolved in Europe and the United States (and several Oriental countries) take root in the rest of the world?

If it can, our species is going to have a really splendid future. If it does not, I fear that we will be in for interesting times.

 

[Diuretic]

On East Timor Doug I was actually thinking of my country's treatment of them after their independence was achieved. Our PM made a big deal out of our role (supposed) in helping East Timor gain its independence from Indonesia. And then we shaft the poor bastards on their oil rights! It's like saving a bloke from being mugged and then taking money out of his wallet as payment for services rendered. It was a totally dishonest act on our part. The East Timorese had no ability to stand up to our commercial bullyboy act. It was shameful of us.

As for capitalism. As the late TR Young put it, capitalism has given humankind some wonderful benefits but it's in need of restraint and rehabilitation (actually that last bit could be just me and not TR).

TR Young - http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/RED_FEATHER/ - worth a read for those with an open mind.

 

[Doug]

Diuretic: Thanks for that link to the socialist sociologists. As Orwell said, some ideas are so preposterous that only intellectuals could believe them.

The problem with radicals scolding European and American imperialists is that they isolate us from history and the behavior of the rest of mankind.

All peoples try to conquer their neighbors. Invasion, war, conquest, are the historical norm. The Arabs were exploited briefly by the British, but before that they were conquered by the Turks, and before that they themselves were invaders and conquerers. Muslims invaded and conquered the Hindus, and tried to conquer Europe. And on and on.

The West is now in the process of getting old and dying, and in its senility, it begins to apologize for behaving like everyone else did, but being more successful at it.

 

[Doug]

Diuretic: I see I was a bit hasty in my comments about socialists.

Although most of them are silly people, some of them are, or were, in some respects, quite sharp observers of the world political scene.

I think the strongest justification for British imperialism in India was written by Karl Marx, and his and Engels' appreciation for the progressive role of capitalism in the world, especially in its destruction of Third World cultures, is of course well-known. (Well-known to us conservatives who read the 'canon' of dead white males, I mean. Most socialists have not read Marx, so we cannot expect them to know this.) My appreciation for the perceptiveness of Marx and Engels does not, I hasten to add, extend to approval of their well-known racism.