mike2000 is back
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 8,513
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
ahahahahah........ @Nihonjin1051 sama, always diplomatic and optimistic even more than the locals themselves. 
I admire that about you though, if only everybody in the world was like you, or better still if only reality was so rosy.
Well, coming to topic, IMO there are hundreds of reasons and books addressing all the different reasons for the midddle east current and past conflicts/chaos. Some of them even agree with each other.
In general, I think it's because the region, as a whole, is caught in the middle of a process of development.
Much of the region, though not all of it, was part of historic empires -- Greek, Roman, Persian, Ottoman. As a result, the nationalistic, country-building aspirations were thwarted for centuries. When the last empire dissolved, a form of colonialism stepped in. This again thwarted state-building, although national borders usually artificial were created by us as you stated earlier. lol .
At the end of colonialism, despotic governments took power. These were usually monarchies, though they started being overthrown not long after they were founded, e.g. Syria, Iraq, Egypt.etc The national governments, even those ruled by civilians, tended to be autocratic and based on customary power relationships. These were, on the whole, tribal, with patron:client, paternalistic or even tyrannical governments.Those forms of government worked well for small areas with small, homogenous populations, all subscribing to the same (more or less) cultural values.
When these states were confronted by foreign states and cultures that seemed to be superior in some regards incomes, health care, possessions, education, progress on many axes a realization that change was necessary set in.
Just what changes needed to be made, however, was not clear. Some opted for governments that were democratic in form while others stuck with monarchies. Various experiments in economic models were tried on. The countries sought progress, but hopefully without much if any social change. This, however, is simply not possible. Scapegoating -- blaming somebody else became a frequently used method of deflecting criticism against the government(as i said several times on here, many islamists tend to blame only foreign powers for all their ills than themselves). Problems were never the government's fault, but always those of somebody else, usually outside the borders.Many people have mentioned good things. Factors like natural resources (oil) and colonialism seem reasonable. But the Middle East is not the only place where these factors are present. Yet the political scene in the Middle East is exceptionally chaotic.
There has been brisk and broad competition among the states of the region and also between those outside it. There has been no single, clear answer to resolve the political, economic, and social problems. As a result, people of the region see themselves falling behind the rest of the world in many areas of life, from political and human rights to economic development. In most of the states, the traditional power structures struggle to stay alive and in power while the populations look for something better. This leads to instability, which again often leads to wars.
Traditional ways of living and traditional values appear to be under attack. That makes people very unhappy and they struggle to defend themselves, their history, traditions, and customs. This leads to profound unhappiness with the status quo and different ways of trying to, again, change things, without changing everything(Arab spring anyone?
)
Add in a certain amount of foreign meddling(Soviet Russia, U.S, France, U.K etc), great sums of money flowering into some countries (the oil states) without an equitable distribution of the riches; and outsiders screaming that their traditional culture, religion, social structures, views of 'the way things should be' are all deficient in some way, and you end up with a multidimensional mess that's looking for solutions.
As for the religious aspect...hmmmm....i dont want to go into too much details, since i'm not really religious myself. lol However from what i have red so far, it seems Sunnis say the prophet left no successor and the people had to choose one for themselves and the successor doesn't have be infallible at all times, he only has to be infallible when he is delivering the message.
Shias say the prophet left a successor and God chose him and the successor has to be infallible at all times even when he is attending his personal matters.
But that small difference in the very first successor changes the WHOLE chain of successors/leaders/interpreters which basically changes everything.
Funny thing is they all share same concepts but with significant differences in their details:
They both believe in Allah, Hajj, Prophet Muhammad, Quran, Prophets, 5 times of prayer, Hijab, fasting, prohibition of Wine, Mahdi (messiah), relation with the people of the book, prohibition of Adultery,etc.
I dont really get what they are fighting over TBH. Though i find the proxy war/geo political games they are playing in the region interesting to say the least.
I admire that about you though, if only everybody in the world was like you, or better still if only reality was so rosy.
Well, coming to topic, IMO there are hundreds of reasons and books addressing all the different reasons for the midddle east current and past conflicts/chaos. Some of them even agree with each other.
In general, I think it's because the region, as a whole, is caught in the middle of a process of development.
Much of the region, though not all of it, was part of historic empires -- Greek, Roman, Persian, Ottoman. As a result, the nationalistic, country-building aspirations were thwarted for centuries. When the last empire dissolved, a form of colonialism stepped in. This again thwarted state-building, although national borders usually artificial were created by us as you stated earlier. lol .
At the end of colonialism, despotic governments took power. These were usually monarchies, though they started being overthrown not long after they were founded, e.g. Syria, Iraq, Egypt.etc The national governments, even those ruled by civilians, tended to be autocratic and based on customary power relationships. These were, on the whole, tribal, with patron:client, paternalistic or even tyrannical governments.Those forms of government worked well for small areas with small, homogenous populations, all subscribing to the same (more or less) cultural values.
When these states were confronted by foreign states and cultures that seemed to be superior in some regards incomes, health care, possessions, education, progress on many axes a realization that change was necessary set in.
Just what changes needed to be made, however, was not clear. Some opted for governments that were democratic in form while others stuck with monarchies. Various experiments in economic models were tried on. The countries sought progress, but hopefully without much if any social change. This, however, is simply not possible. Scapegoating -- blaming somebody else became a frequently used method of deflecting criticism against the government(as i said several times on here, many islamists tend to blame only foreign powers for all their ills than themselves). Problems were never the government's fault, but always those of somebody else, usually outside the borders.Many people have mentioned good things. Factors like natural resources (oil) and colonialism seem reasonable. But the Middle East is not the only place where these factors are present. Yet the political scene in the Middle East is exceptionally chaotic.
There has been brisk and broad competition among the states of the region and also between those outside it. There has been no single, clear answer to resolve the political, economic, and social problems. As a result, people of the region see themselves falling behind the rest of the world in many areas of life, from political and human rights to economic development. In most of the states, the traditional power structures struggle to stay alive and in power while the populations look for something better. This leads to instability, which again often leads to wars.
Traditional ways of living and traditional values appear to be under attack. That makes people very unhappy and they struggle to defend themselves, their history, traditions, and customs. This leads to profound unhappiness with the status quo and different ways of trying to, again, change things, without changing everything(Arab spring anyone?
)Add in a certain amount of foreign meddling(Soviet Russia, U.S, France, U.K etc), great sums of money flowering into some countries (the oil states) without an equitable distribution of the riches; and outsiders screaming that their traditional culture, religion, social structures, views of 'the way things should be' are all deficient in some way, and you end up with a multidimensional mess that's looking for solutions.
As for the religious aspect...hmmmm....i dont want to go into too much details, since i'm not really religious myself. lol However from what i have red so far, it seems Sunnis say the prophet left no successor and the people had to choose one for themselves and the successor doesn't have be infallible at all times, he only has to be infallible when he is delivering the message.
Shias say the prophet left a successor and God chose him and the successor has to be infallible at all times even when he is attending his personal matters.
But that small difference in the very first successor changes the WHOLE chain of successors/leaders/interpreters which basically changes everything.
Funny thing is they all share same concepts but with significant differences in their details:
They both believe in Allah, Hajj, Prophet Muhammad, Quran, Prophets, 5 times of prayer, Hijab, fasting, prohibition of Wine, Mahdi (messiah), relation with the people of the book, prohibition of Adultery,etc.
I dont really get what they are fighting over TBH. Though i find the proxy war/geo political games they are playing in the region interesting to say the least.
