Why are Arab countries politically fragmented?

[DrZoidberg]

Here's a good one. An explanation as to why Arabs always lose wars with Israel. Its pretty balanced imho.



The short version: if your army is designed and trained to protect the regime against its own people, it will lose when up against an army designed to fight enemies.







The video doesn't go into why the Arab countries are so politically fragmented. Which would be interesting. It falls back on the old lazy blaming colonialism. European countries were similarly religiously and ethnically diverse in the 18'th century. Through secular nation building programmes of the 19'th century we built away those ethnic conflicts. European borders are also arbitrary and when drawn took no consideration to ethnic makeup (or the opinion of the people).



So I think we can come up with a better explanation than just blaming white people?

What do you think?

 

[Gospel]

Hold up. You want to understand why Arab nations are politically fragmented, but you want to dismiss colonialism because you don't like the idea of white Europeans being held responsible for anything? Bruh, history doesn't work that way.

You say Europeans managed to build away their ethnic and religious conflicts through secular nation-building in the 19th century. Really? Is that what we're calling it now? Because from where I'm sitting, Europe spent the next century fighting two world wars, committing genocide, ethnically cleansing populations, and tearing entire countries apart. If that's your definition of successfully resolving ethnic conflict, I'd hate to see what failure looks like.

And here's what I find particularly interesting about your argument. You acknowledge that European borders were drawn without regard for the people living within them, yet somehow fail to recognize the significance of Europeans doing that very same thing to people OUTSIDE of Europe.

Britain and France didn't just show up in the Middle East to admire the architecture, homie. They established mandates, divided territories, installed political arrangements, and pursued their own interests. These aren't accusations. These are historical facts.

Now, am I saying Arab nations bear no responsibility for their present circumstances? Absolutely not. Their governments, political movements, and leaders have made plenty of decisions that deserve criticism. But those decisions didn't occur in a vacuum.

What I find amusing is how quickly colonialism becomes a "lazy excuse" the moment European responsibility enters the conversation. Yet you have no problem reaching back into European history to find the "lazy excuse" to European political development. As if the wealth and resources extracted from territories outside Europe didn't play a major role in Europe's own development and prosperity.

Come on, man. You can't have it both ways.

If we're going to examine history, then let's examine ALL of it. Not just the chapters that make certain people comfortable.

Lastly, nobody has to blame white people collectively to acknowledge what European colonial governments actually did. If you can't distinguish between those two things, perhaps you should start with that conversation first.

 

[Bomb#20]

The video doesn't go into why the Arab countries are so politically fragmented.
...
What do you think?

Why wouldn't they be politically fragmented? Everything about the modern state of the Arab world is the way it is because it was conquered by the Turks, ruled by an alien overlord for centuries, and then the alien overlord imprudently joined the losing side in the War to End All Wars. So what's the scenario where the Arabs are unified? If the Ottomans had stayed out of WWI or joined the Allies then they'd still be around, they'd still be the sick man of Europe, and pieces of the Arab world would have peeled off one at a time and gotten their independence piecemeal in parallel with the rest of Europe losing its colonies. So it would be fragmented anyway. The only scenario I can see where the Arabs are all their own single country is if the Mamluks had beaten the Turks in the 1500s.

 

[Patooka]

Man, if only the Arabs were as monolithic as the Irish.

 

[Politesse]

Through secular nation building programmes of the 19'th century we built away those ethnic conflicts.

Yes, we all admire how Europe dealt with all its ethnic conflicts in the 19th century.

 

[Tigers!]

Through secular nation building programmes of the 19'th century we built away those ethnic conflicts.

Yes, we all admire how Europe dealt with all its ethnic conflicts in the 19th century.


View attachment 55795

Congratulations on being this thread's Godwin winner

PS: Hitler was 20th C not 19th C

 

[Politesse]

Through secular nation building programmes of the 19'th century we built away those ethnic conflicts.

Yes, we all admire how Europe dealt with all its ethnic conflicts in the 19th century.


View attachment 55795

Congratulations on being this thread's Godwin winner

PS: Hitler was 20th C not 19th C

Word to the wise: the 20th century happened after the 19th century. If Europe built away all of its ethnic conflicts by 1899, everything that occurred in 1900-1999 constitutes our evidence of how effective that process was.

Would you say that 20th century European history was characterized by the absence or relative unimportance of the ethnic tensions that the 19th century neatly resolved?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hold up. You want to understand why Arab nations are politically fragmented, but you want to dismiss colonialism because you don't like the idea of white Europeans being held responsible for anything? Bruh, history doesn't work that way.

At no point did I say this. If you can't be bothered to read what I write, I won't be bothered to reply.

You say Europeans managed to build away their ethnic and religious conflicts through secular nation-building in the 19th century. Really? Is that what we're calling it now? Because from where I'm sitting, Europe spent the next century fighting two world wars, committing genocide, ethnically cleansing populations, and tearing entire countries apart. If that's your definition of successfully resolving ethnic conflict, I'd hate to see what failure looks like.

Yeah. That's how success looks like. Fascism and Nazism were direct results of the nation building projects of the 19th century. I didn't say it was free of problems or conflicts. It was an incredibly bloody period.

At the time of the French revolution 12% of the French people could speak French. France had about 200 languages. The fact that all French now speak French is good for the people who live in France. It makes doing business much much easier.

A big reason Europe got so wealthy and managed to take over the world, was because they created efficient governance. The nationalising projects were very much a part of this.

And here's what I find particularly interesting about your argument. You acknowledge that European borders were drawn without regard for the people living within them, yet somehow fail to recognize the significance of Europeans doing that very same thing to people OUTSIDE of Europe.

Yeah. My point is that the fact that borders in the Middle-East took no consideration for ethnicity is often used as an excuse for why they have all the conflicts they have. Europe did the same. How come we don't have loads of ethnic conflicts all over Europe still? We don't. There's the odd region here and there. But in general Europeans get along really well with each other and our main identities tend to be national. That's huge. 200 years ago nobody's primary identity was their nation. The world looked completely different.

Britain and France didn't just show up in the Middle East to admire the architecture, homie. They established mandates, divided territories, installed political arrangements, and pursued their own interests. These aren't accusations. These are historical facts.

Yeah. I don't understand what you are arguing for or against?

Now, am I saying Arab nations bear no responsibility for their present circumstances? Absolutely not. Their governments, political movements, and leaders have made plenty of decisions that deserve criticism. But those decisions didn't occur in a vacuum.

Hardly anybody is responsible for how their country is organised. All that happened before any of us were alive. That's true for each countries leaders as well. We're saddled with our heritage and we're all just trying to muddle through and make things better... somehow..

What I find amusing is how quickly colonialism becomes a "lazy excuse" the moment European responsibility enters the conversation. Yet you have no problem reaching back into European history to find the "lazy excuse" to European political development. As if the wealth and resources extracted from territories outside Europe didn't play a major role in Europe's own development and prosperity.

Again... I'm not sure what you are arguing for or against. Europe extracted wealth from their territories. But that wealth went to the armies. Maintaining their empires cost more than any colonial power ever managed to extract. No European empire made a profit. If they did Europe would still be ruling the world. The reason the British empire folded after WW2 was because Britain was broke. Their empire was always a luxury paid for by the wealth generated by British manufacturing industry. Two world wars meant that Britain had no surplus to pay for luxuries. So their empire disintegrated.

Or to put it differently. The European colonial powers broke a lot of eggs but
never managed to figure out how to make an omelette.

European imperialism was the act of European countries waving about their dicks, pushing it into other people's faces. That was it. They continually tried figuring out how to make money from their colonies. It never happened.

Economically the entire project was worthless for all parties. It wasn't even destructive for the natives necessarily. Because it sped up their modernisation process. Which, in the long run, turned out to be a good thing. But would it have happened anyway? Probably. So the chances are that the whole empire building project was just nothing. A big mess for nothing.

Come on, man. You can't have it both ways.

I don't understand what you are arguing for or against.

If we're going to examine history, then let's examine ALL of it. Not just the chapters that make certain people comfortable.

Sure. That's an obvious statement.

Lastly, nobody has to blame white people collectively to acknowledge what European colonial governments actually did. If you can't distinguish between those two things, perhaps you should start with that conversation first.

Again... I don't understand how this comment is relevant.

 

[bilby]

You say Europeans managed to build away their ethnic and religious conflicts through secular nation-building in the 19th century. Really? Is that what we're calling it now? Because from where I'm sitting, Europe spent the next century fighting two world wars, committing genocide, ethnically cleansing populations, and tearing entire countries apart. If that's your definition of successfully resolving ethnic conflict, I'd hate to see what failure looks like.

Yeah. That's how success looks like. Fascism and Nazism were direct results of the nation building projects of the 19th century. I didn't say it was free of problems or conflicts. It was an incredibly bloody period.

At the time of the French revolution 12% of the French people could speak French. France had about 200 languages. The fact that all French now speak French is good for the people who live in France. It makes doing business much much easier.

A big reason Europe got so wealthy and managed to take over the world, was because they created efficient governance. The nationalising projects were very much a part of this.

There is a fundamental problem with defining "success" in terms of "wealthy" and "manag[ing] to take over the world", while permitting that "success" criterion to include the slaughter of large numbers of people by fanatics, ideologues, and enthusiasts.

In my book, any society that allows the slaughter of large numbers of people is a failure, no matter how wealthy or powerful its citizens, leaders, or institutions might become.

The central question here is whether our success criteria should include an absence of deliberately imposed suffering and mass death; I would argue that this criterion is so important that success by other criteria which discard this central criterion is not, in fact, success at all.

I think it is possible to get rich and powerful without comitting atrocities; And further, that if it is not possible, the appropriate moral and ethical course is to settle for being less rich and/or less powerful.

 

[steve_bank]

You might say the Arab Israeli wars were in a sense Russian-American proxy wars. Russia had a mid east agenda.

Russia was supporting Egypt and the oil states with mil tray equipment and advisors. We eventually replaced Russia. Witness all the jet fighter sales to Arabs.

Post WWII an Amerce Jewish officer was allowed to go to Israel during the first conflict. He is credited wit turning the Jewish militants into an effective army. He was killed by friendly fore on the last day.

Is real quickly built a militray industry

It was all about air superiority. In one of the wars Israel preemptively bombed airfields and RADAR.

Israeli Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Neityherr Iraq nor Iran were part of the initial Arab Israeli wars.

To me the Arab oil states are an anacronism. I look at them like Jed Clampett and the Beverly Hillbillies.

Old Jeb finds oil on his property and before you know it his backwards backwoods family is rich living in La.

The Arabs are lazy. Saudi Arabia has long tried to diversify. They had trouble getting men to work, they were used to living on the oil dole.

The thing is if Iran had dropped its aggression it would probably dominate the region economically.

I don't know if Saudi Arabia is fractured. It has a monolithic religion and political subsystem. Arab states do not all get along.