Page 208 of the Ebook states: "The possibility that countries which are riven internally by religion, sect and tribe will descend into anarchy and civil war, as in Lebanon, generates the kinds of circumstances in which dictatorship can also flourish, as in Syria and Iraq." This statement makes several assumptions about the causes of political conflict in the Middle East. What are some of the assumptions made? What is another viewpoint? What do you think?
Pre-existing Conditions and other things not covered by insurance.
Published by
This assumption faults the natives and does not credit the colonial empires for contributing, and in some cases creating, the chaotic circumstances that allowed oppressive governments to flourish. Following this statement, in Changing the Geography of Africa and the Middle East on page 208, is an explanation of how dictators affirm authority: "Such dictatorships may claim legitimacy in terms of a unifying ideology such as a brand of Arab socialism, but rarely do they weld into a co-operative international community. Rather, they bring national aspiration and rivalry to the fore." The assertion neglects to address why the people, who otherwise intend to maintain their independent sects and tribes, need a €˜unifying ideology.' In addition, it overlooks the causes of nationalism in Middle East countries. A unifying ideology and nationalism was a necessity to the people who sought freedom from the domineering, racist, unfair and unequal colonial regimes. In Struggle and Survival in the Modern Middle East, the stories of Mohand N'Hamoucha: A Middle Atlas Berber, Bibi Maryam: A Bakhtiyari Tribal Woman, the Shaykh and His Daughter: Coping in Colonial Algeria, Izz al-Din al-Qassam: Preacher and Mujahid, Abu Ali Al-Kilawi: A Damascus Qabaday, M'hamed Ali: Tunisian Labor Organizer, exhibit the struggles that natives had to endure for autonomy. During these struggles, the natives united against their colonial rulers. In the case of M'hamed Ali: Tunisian Labor Organizer, it is evident that the French imperialists' oppressive tactics caused the nationalist movement in Tunisia: "€¦ the colonial situation was full of contradictions. The Tunisian working class competed for jobs with a substantial number of privileged workers €¦. In effect, they had become second-ranking workers in their own country. Competition with Europeans was unequal, discrimination in pay scales and waged galled many, and racist attitudes of European coworkers could hardly promote human dignity," (Burke 170). Native leaders, such as M'hamed, who believed in "introducing Tunisians to modern techniques of economy and administration," (Burke 169) and understood "that meaningful emancipation could come only from a total reform of the society and the individual," (Burke 169) were well-qualified to lead their countries and governments. However, they were suppressed, imprisoned and exiled by the colonial regimes. This promoted radicalism and brought about dictatorships. Another cause to keep in mind is that the natives saw their own governments, who at the time bent to the colonists' desires for the natives' property and resources, as treacherous and untrustworthy; this allowed various types of radical ideology and leaders to become powerful and thrive. This can be viewed through the story of Izz al-Din al-Qassam: Preacher and Mujahid, who turned his struggle against the British officials, Zionist settlers and Palestinian elite politicians into an Islamic radical movement. In conclusion, the statement wrongly accuses the indigenous people of the Middle East for causing political conflict in their countries instead of the colonial regimes.
Suleiman I, you’ve done a fantastic job of sifting through the various assigned readings to address the question, and an even better job of outlining specific readings to support your response. Well done!