Yes, I think the author is trying to be objective. Whether that makes much of a difference in another matter. The problem is not one of lack of information, though. Every time America goes to war we get a new history and geography lesson. We went to war in Vietnam and half of the people in the country didn’t know where the country. Ten years later we were experts on Indo-China. In the early nineties most of us didn’t know the difference between a Serb or a Croat but that didn’t stop us from bombing the Serbs (who incidently for several centuries were the first line of defense against the Turks is and one of the reasons that the Vatican and Notre Dame are not mosques today as is the case with Hagia Sophia, which was the greatest church in all Christendom). When 9-11 occurred there were those of us who swarmed to Amazon and Barnes and Noble to stock up on intellectual ammo: Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Karen Armstrong, Robert Spencer, etc.. The churches were well-attended for some months after.
Neil Caplan has written a lot and knows his subject through and through and validates his book with copious footnotes. Perhaps there are people who make decisions and form their opinions on the basis of reliable information. To quote from the wizard of Oz: they have diplomas from great universities. But great cataclysmic events like wars are won and lost with powerful images that appeal to primordial emotions and latent values: the Iwo Jima monument (which incidentally was staged), the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing from a napalm, General Nguyen Ngoc Loan summary execution of a captured and bound Vietcong (who was caught in flagrante delicto murdering civilians), the IDF paratroopers at the Western Wall after a two thousand year diaspora, Palestinians celebrating 9/11, etc.
It would be a bummer to think that the conflict would never end. Just thinking of religion-ruled states, the Vatican is the one that stands out most prominently. Albeit, that is a completely different scenario where only one religion claims that land as important, it demonstrates that the possibility to have a nation defined by religion can exist. I think of combining that idea with the idea of how the Swiss government works in order to create a homogeneous mixture of religions in the state. In Switzerland, there are 2 main religions roaming around (Catholic and Protestant). Most cantons (our version of a state within a country) have one religion that is quite predominant, though some have both religions. That was quite troublesome during the 17 and 1800's during the aftermath of the reformation, as states would have neighboring cities where different religions were practiced. It was to the extreme that, in once town/village, the single church that was available was used for both religions as a shared establishment. The catholics would bring out all of their relics and paintings and what-not during their services, then store them back in the church storage to make way for the protestant services. The other great issue in Switzerland is the existence of four official languages: German (63% of population), French (20%), Italian (6.5%), and Romansh (.5%). One can imagine that taking representatives and senators from all four regions (not equally, though based on the population of the region like in the US (for the representatives) would stir up a bit of trouble for the non-German-speaking residents of Switzerland as they would never get their fair voice out; all of the policies would be favored towards the Swiss-Germans. Instead of spewing out the entire history of the politics of Switzerland and the close calls had due to the language issue in this neutral country, I'll say that the country lives in harmony with two single goals in mind: neutrality and peace. They know that they can't stay neutral unless they all stick together, and they can only stay together if they're at peace with each other. Nobody in Switzerland wants to be at war, not even between themselves (due to language/religion disputes). So, politically, what they do is find the majority opinion, then deliberate for a LONG time over the minority opinions of the under-represented reasons of Switzerland and change things around in the law they come up with so that everyone is content. It's a Very long and slow process, but a necessary one if the Swiss are to stay unified as a neutral state with their unique situation of having 4 official languages. I believe a similar situation, in which Israel/Palestine/The Levant shares the political system while allowing followers of the three big religions to remain there could lead to a settled conflict. Though the political system of one country can't transfer over exactly to another and still work without a hitch; the issue may be even more complicated yet. Shaun
Some very informative material on the Swiss model, Shaun. It suggests just how much WORK is necessary to maintain multi-ethnic & multi-linguistic harmony within geopolitical confines.
3 comments:
Yes, I think the author is trying to be objective. Whether that makes much of a difference in another matter. The problem is not one of lack of information, though. Every time America goes to war we get a new history and geography lesson. We went to war in Vietnam and half of the people in the country didn’t know where the country. Ten years later we were experts on Indo-China. In the early nineties most of us didn’t know the difference between a Serb or a Croat but that didn’t stop us from bombing the Serbs (who incidently for several centuries were the first line of defense against the Turks is and one of the reasons that the Vatican and Notre Dame are not mosques today as is the case with Hagia Sophia, which was the greatest church in all Christendom). When 9-11 occurred there were those of us who swarmed to Amazon and Barnes and Noble to stock up on intellectual ammo: Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Karen Armstrong, Robert Spencer, etc.. The churches were well-attended for some months after.
Neil Caplan has written a lot and knows his subject through and through and validates his book with copious footnotes. Perhaps there are people who make decisions and form their opinions on the basis of reliable information. To quote from the wizard of Oz: they have diplomas from great universities. But great cataclysmic events like wars are won and lost with powerful images that appeal to primordial emotions and latent values: the Iwo Jima monument (which incidentally was staged), the naked Vietnamese girl fleeing from a napalm, General Nguyen Ngoc Loan summary execution of a captured and bound Vietcong (who was caught in flagrante delicto murdering civilians), the IDF paratroopers at the Western Wall after a two thousand year diaspora, Palestinians celebrating 9/11, etc.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0003/arm01.htm
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm12.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
It would be a bummer to think that the conflict would never end. Just thinking of religion-ruled states, the Vatican is the one that stands out most prominently. Albeit, that is a completely different scenario where only one religion claims that land as important, it demonstrates that the possibility to have a nation defined by religion can exist.
I think of combining that idea with the idea of how the Swiss government works in order to create a homogeneous mixture of religions in the state.
In Switzerland, there are 2 main religions roaming around (Catholic and Protestant). Most cantons (our version of a state within a country) have one religion that is quite predominant, though some have both religions. That was quite troublesome during the 17 and 1800's during the aftermath of the reformation, as states would have neighboring cities where different religions were practiced. It was to the extreme that, in once town/village, the single church that was available was used for both religions as a shared establishment. The catholics would bring out all of their relics and paintings and what-not during their services, then store them back in the church storage to make way for the protestant services.
The other great issue in Switzerland is the existence of four official languages: German (63% of population), French (20%), Italian (6.5%), and Romansh (.5%). One can imagine that taking representatives and senators from all four regions (not equally, though based on the population of the region like in the US (for the representatives) would stir up a bit of trouble for the non-German-speaking residents of Switzerland as they would never get their fair voice out; all of the policies would be favored towards the Swiss-Germans.
Instead of spewing out the entire history of the politics of Switzerland and the close calls had due to the language issue in this neutral country, I'll say that the country lives in harmony with two single goals in mind: neutrality and peace. They know that they can't stay neutral unless they all stick together, and they can only stay together if they're at peace with each other.
Nobody in Switzerland wants to be at war, not even between themselves (due to language/religion disputes). So, politically, what they do is find the majority opinion, then deliberate for a LONG time over the minority opinions of the under-represented reasons of Switzerland and change things around in the law they come up with so that everyone is content. It's a Very long and slow process, but a necessary one if the Swiss are to stay unified as a neutral state with their unique situation of having 4 official languages.
I believe a similar situation, in which Israel/Palestine/The Levant shares the political system while allowing followers of the three big religions to remain there could lead to a settled conflict. Though the political system of one country can't transfer over exactly to another and still work without a hitch; the issue may be even more complicated yet.
Shaun
Some very informative material on the Swiss model, Shaun. It suggests just how much WORK is necessary to maintain multi-ethnic & multi-linguistic harmony within geopolitical confines.
pdk
Post a Comment