Random Politics 2

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator: Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
Yasna
Posts: 2200
Joined: 2011-09-12, 1:17
Gender: male
Location: Boston
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics 2

Postby Yasna » 2019-08-13, 21:34

Saim wrote:Yes, the ideological aspect of the problem has a name, and you just mentioned it — Wahhabism . “Islamic extremism”, on the other hand, is ambiguous, because it can just as well be employed in the Americans’ hysterical screeching on Iran, Hamas (or even Palestinians in general) or Hezbollah. Based on your posts so far I think you’d agree that that has very little to do with Wahhabism.

Like I said, anything along these lines would have been fine.

As for “withdrawing support from countries that cultivate Wahhabism”, I see no reason to believe the term “Islamic extremism” has any magical properties that would make heads of state who utter it automatically cut ties with Saudi Arabia or Qatar. In fact, Trump has been pretty resoundingly pro-Saudi, all while being a massive Islamophobe domestically (and he has said “Islamic extremism”). So I just don’t see the connection in terms of things that have actually happened.

Getting the terminology right doesn't guarantee any positive results, but it's obviously still important. You yourself have argued for the importance of clearly identifying racism wherever it pops up.

Regarding East Asians, I’m sure if the US military was in the business of starving Japanese children (rather than Yemeni children as is the case now), we’d be hearing all sorts of things about how Shinto, Buddhism and other aspects of Japanese culture are inferior or violent. That’s what you come to understand when you have a materialistic (which is distinct from economically reductionist) rather than idealistic view of history.

We'd be hearing those sorts of things, but how much traction would they gain? That depends not just on materialistic factors, but also on the inherent plausibility and explanatory power of any given narrative.

linguoboy wrote:[citation needed]

It's just the humble analysis of an interested observer who lived through the times.

I'm not really sure how "withdrawing support from allied countries that cultivate Wahhabism" would have helped.

By putting pressure on them to stop spreading Wahhabism. Another even more effective policy would be for the US to stop meddling militarily in Islamic countries.

That's basically Saudi and we're not withdrawing support from them while they are one of the only countries that has the oil we need still on speaking terms with us. (Maybe if our slow-motion coup in Venezuela succeeds and we can pump them dry instead, that will change, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that.)

Whether or not our politicians are willing to implement a policy is a separate question.
Ein Buch muß die Axt sein für das gefrorene Meer in uns. - Kafka

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 24028
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Random Politics 2

Postby vijayjohn » 2019-08-14, 3:12

Yasna wrote:Getting the terminology right doesn't guarantee any positive results, but it's obviously still important.

But that isn't getting the terminology right. Islamic ≠ Wahhabi.

White nationalism is an extremist ideology. Wahhabism is, too. Islam is not.
Saim wrote:Regarding East Asians, I’m sure if the US military was in the business of starving Japanese children (rather than Yemeni children as is the case now), we’d be hearing all sorts of things about how Shinto, Buddhism and other aspects of Japanese culture are inferior or violent. That’s what you come to understand when you have a materialistic (which is distinct from economically reductionist) rather than idealistic view of history.

We'd be hearing those sorts of things, but how much traction would they gain? That depends not just on materialistic factors, but also on the inherent plausibility and explanatory power of any given narrative.

This is already starting to happen with Sri Lanka and Burma; people are questioning whether Buddhism is a religion of peace or whatever because the Buddhist clergy in both countries is promoting ethnic violence. During World War II, the US was in the business of starving Japanese children, and part of the war effort in the US was precisely portraying Japanese culture as both inferior and violent.
It's just the humble analysis of an interested observer who lived through the times.

So can you actually provide a citation to back up said analysis
I'm not really sure how "withdrawing support from allied countries that cultivate Wahhabism" would have helped.

By putting pressure on them to stop spreading Wahhabism. Another even more effective policy would be for the US to stop meddling militarily in Islamic countries.

That's basically Saudi and we're not withdrawing support from them while they are one of the only countries that has the oil we need still on speaking terms with us. (Maybe if our slow-motion coup in Venezuela succeeds and we can pump them dry instead, that will change, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that.)

Whether or not our politicians are willing to implement a policy is a separate question.

This is not just about what the politicians will or won't do, though. It's a question of what a reasonable approach would be given how deep we've already landed ourselves. We can't just pretend we'll be fine if we suddenly stop supporting Saudi Arabia altogether after at least 64 years with no backup plan. We have to at least find some kind of alternative arrangement.


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest