Monthly Archives: September 2012

In Light of The Protests, Don’t Disavow Arab Democracy Just Yet

Posted on by
Reply

The protests sweeping the Middle East in response to the anti-Islamic video “The Innocence of Muslims” are frightening to many in the West, as they should be. They demonstrate that there are still significant segments of the population in the Middle East and Muslim world who are willing to use violence as a tool of protest, and that values which we in the Western world take for granted, such as freedom of expression, are not fully understood or embraced in their societies. The killing of the American ambassador to Libya was a tragedy, as was the rest of the violence, slaughter, and disruption that these protests have brought with them. It’s understandable, then, why many in the West are suddenly disillusioned about the prospects of a peaceful and stable post-revolution Middle East, and why many more are arguing that the new democracies in the Middle East are going to be havens for radical Islam and other movements which are willing to carry out these violence-filled protests and assaults. This disillusionment and these fears, however, are short-sighted and fail to acknowledge the new realities brought about by democracy and the actual outlook of those in the Middle East.

The media in the West has been pelting viewers with images of violent Arabs protesting against the United States in the street, and as a result this has become the stereotype that most Americans think of when discussing the Arab and Muslim world. Of course, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. The majority of Muslims in the Middle East are moderate, and they have been largely sitting out the protests and not contributing to the violence. The problem is, they constitute a silent majority, and unfortunately it is always the most vocal group which gets the most attention. Radical Islamists, who seek to use violence as a tool against the West and against our values, do exist in the Middle East, and they constitute the vocal minority. Reports coming in about the assault on the Libyan Embassy are saying that the attack was orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, a group which is known for its terroristic actions and which can hardly be associated with the average Arab. Meanwhile, more analyses on the protests are showing that they are being ‘manufactured’ by radical groups, such as the Salafists, who are using the video as opportunities to increase their influence and thereby grow in power. What is important to remember is that these groups do not constitute majority opinion in the Middle East. Rather, they are fringe actors who are using violence to gain notice and thus achieve political goals, and the unfortunate fact is that the Western news media is playing into their game. The more commentary coming out of Western news outlets that the Middle East is becoming radicalized, the less willing Americans become to support the Middle Eastern experiment in democracy. It is when West, which has largely bolstered these new democratic regimes and which are currently supporting their tenuous economies, pulls away its support that radical and fringe groups such as the Salafists can truly work their way into the system

There is hope, however. The fact is, the Middle East experiment in democracy is going surprisingly smoothly, and is much less radical than the news would have us believe. Libya, where the embassy was assaulted and the ambassador killed, has elected a secular, liberal party to lead parliament and draft the new constitution. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood seems to have embraced a moderate technocratic standpoint. We must consider that Egypt society contains a large Coptic Christian contingent, and the Brotherhood understands that it must not alienate them if it wishes to have legitimacy in parliament and in the presidency. Finally, Morsi, the Egyptian President, has been ruling more as a technocrat than as an Islamist, appointing many minority and opposition groups into positions of power in his government and stepping down from his position in the Brotherhood.

Finally, a reminder on how democracies work should be put out to the Western observers of the turmoil in the Middle East. These protests will undoubtedly disrupt relations between the West and the Arab world, and these disruptions will no doubt damage the economies of the new democratic states. Tunisia and Egypt rely heavily upon American aid, and tourism is a major contributor to their economies. These violent protests will definitely disrupt both. With the economies stagnating, voters in these new democracies will do what they now have power to do: vote out those who screwed them over, and vote in those who promise to do the opposite. The average Arab can see that radical elements caused and led these protests, and as a response it will be the radicals who suffer most in the voting booth. This is how democracy should work, and I am quite optimistic that it is how it will play out in the end. The West needs to not disavow the Arab experiments in democracy just yet, and they cannot stereotype the average Arab as a radical Islamist. Doing either is short-sighted, and frankly incorrect, and would severely undermine the promise the Middle East current holds.

Poem # 3: Wanderers

Posted on by
Reply

Wanders, Journeymen, Adventurers, so brave
Who slaved away at the sails and fought the ocean waves.
They knew the risks, but yet they craved
The chance to move along.
To the horizon they set their course
To see what lay beyond.

Wanderers, Journeymen, Adventures, so daring.
They trekked across the unknown land
only stop to take their bearings.
The goings tough, the journey hard, but never they felt dread.
For instead they craved to know
What laid beyond the lands ahead.

Wanderers, Journeymen, Adventurers, so proud.
You searched the Earth high and low to know beyond her shroud.
You eventually took to the sky, and everything was seen.
The day arrived, you were deprived
Of knowledge to be gleaned.

Wanderers, Journeymen, Adventures, what now?
The world is all explored, to the best we can allow.
The answer lay beyond the sky, into the cosmic shore.
Into space, oh journeymen, lets explore once more!

The Influence of Shame, ‘Aidōs’, in The Iliad

Posted on by
Reply

Aidōs, the Ancient Greek word for ‘shame’, was a pervasive element of Greek society. Heavy emphasis was placed on the qualities of heroism and honor in Ancient Greece, and the fear of shame, being the antithesis of the qualities, was thus a powerful motivator and influence for the Ancient Greeks. The concept of shame and the consequences of shaming actions are explored and demonstrated throughout the heroic epic The Iliad. Both of the heroes the epic centers on, Hector of Troy and Achilles the Greek, are influenced by their fear of shame, and respond to shame in important ways which will have large consequences on the course of events.

The Iliad begins with Achilles and Agamemnon, a Greek king and the leader of the Greek siege of Troy, at odds with each other over Agamemnon’s refusal to return his prize girl to her father, the Apollo priest Chryses of Chryse. In response to Achilles’ demands that he return the girl, Agamemnon says that he will do so but will take Achilles’ prize girl, Briseis, to replace her. This taking of his rightful prize is a shaming action on Achilles, who says that Agamemnon “failed to honor the best Greek of all” (pg. 113, line 259) and then refuses to fight for the Greeks any longer. This wrongful shame that Achilles feels at having his prize taken from him whips him into a fury, and his anger and resulting refusal to fight for the Greeks is not placated later by massive offers of gifts and other women from Agamemnon. A consequence of Achilles’ refusal to fight is that his closest friend, Patroclus, goes out to fight in his place and is killed in battle by Hector. Patroclus’ death is an even greater shame to Achilles, who blames his refusal to fight as the reason for Patroclus’ killing. Achilles recognizes that he was unable to protect Patroclus in battle for he “just squatted by my ships, a dead weight on the earth…” (pg. 161, line 109), and the shame he feels for the irresponsibility and pride that caused Patroclus’ death motivates him to do what Agamemnon’s gifts and entreaties could not. He decides that he will go out to fight in battle and kill Hector, despite knowing that, as his divine mother Thetis tells him, “Hector’s death means yours” (pg. 151, line 100). Thus, the shame that Achilles felt was the most powerful influence in his decisions. It first contributed to his decision not to fight for the Greeks in response to the wrongful shame of having his prize taken from him, and then in deciding to fight and kill Hector from the shame of not preventing Patroclus’ death.

Hector, Prince of Troy and the leader of the Trojan defenders, must also grapple with the issue of shame, and his fear of shame contributes to choices of his which will have dramatic consequences. Fighting the Greeks is a dangerous undertaking, and Hector could very easily be killed while in battle. Knowing this, Andromache, Hector’s wife and mother of his infant son, pleads with Hector to stay away from the fighting for her sake and the sake of his child. She begs him to “show some pity and stay here by the tower, Don’t make your child an orphan, your wife a widow” (pg. 129, line 453). Hector refuses, however, responding that “I worry about all this myself, but my shame before the Trojans… would be too terrible if I hung back from battle like a coward. And my heart won’t let me” (pg. 129, line 463). Hector’s fear of the shame cowardice would bring prevents him from staying away from battle, even though his death would have dire consequences for his family. Later, as Hector goes out to face Achilles in mortal combat, his parents try to dissuade him from fighting but are unable. As Hector waits, he briefly considers returning behind Troy’s walls, but decides that he “can’t face the Trojan men and women now… hear some lesser men say, ‘Hector trusted his strength and lost the army’… I’ll be much better off facing Achilles, either killing him or dying honorably before the city” (page 176, line 120) Hector’s fear of shame, both from not fighting Achilles and from contributing to the Trojan army’s defeat, is too strong to allow him to shrink from the battle, even though all know that Achilles is more likely to emerge the victor. Indeed, during the fight Achilles manages to overcome and kill Hector. Hector’s sense of shame, and his great fear of it, was influential enough to force him to face a stronger foe, and in doing so lose his life. The powerful nature of shame is demonstrated in Hectors decisions, for he made them despite knowing that his death would bring grief upon his family and tragedy upon Troy.

As demonstrated in The Iliad, the perception and influence of shame in Ancient Greece was a powerful one, and the consequences of actions taken because of the fear of shame had dire consequences for the heroes of the epic. Shame contributed to Achilles rage and decision to refrain from fighting; it alone contributed to his decision to go out again and fight. The fear of shame prevented Hector from accepting his family’s petitions, forced him to face Achilles in the field, and would, as a result, ultimately lead to his demise.