tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post784539666354480968..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Rushdie on Extreme Multiculturalism Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-18846192960108964702015-12-19T13:20:49.993-08:002015-12-19T13:20:49.993-08:00First Anon
Your contiguous argument is special ple...First Anon<br />Your contiguous argument is special pleading. It richly merits scorn. <br />And your justification is hogwash. Most conquest has involved contiguous domains. Ask any neigh our of the Romans, Chin, Moghuls, Aztecs, Syrians, Russians, Ottomans, Algonquins, Sioux, ... Need I go on? Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-83804881560597190052015-12-19T03:53:45.139-08:002015-12-19T03:53:45.139-08:00Ken B, the 'contiguous' thing is called &#...Ken B, the 'contiguous' thing is called 'the saltwater fallacy'. It's a way of nurturing a special hatred for whitey while ignoring the conquests and colonisations of the brown, black and yellow races.<br /><br />http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/salt-water-fallacy.html<br /><br />The first known act of colonial conquest in human history was when the black Cro-Magnons replaced the white Neanderthals in Europe. It was also one of the most successful, as there is very little Neanderthal DNA left in modern Europeans. Perhaps they inherited their own imperialist tendencies from their African ancestors!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9712549616722784252015-12-19T03:29:14.756-08:002015-12-19T03:29:14.756-08:00"How events in Syria, or there being numerous..."How events in Syria, or there being numerous Jihads in history, disprove that claim, you'll have to explain to me"<br /><br />It gives us reason to doubt the justifications given to Scott Atran by recruits to Jihadism for their behaviour. They did not lay down their weapons when US troops left Iraq, nor was a US troop presence required for them to turn to Jihadism in Syria. Fighting for a global caliphate does not require the presence of US troops, although the presence of such troops is certainly a major obstacle to that goal, which perhaps explains why they gave Scot Atran the disingenuous rationales that they did. Telling an American that they are only fighting because American soldiers are there makes perfect sense if they are trying to get rid of those troops and can sense a weakness of will in their adversary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-77558349680558107812015-12-18T14:54:41.229-08:002015-12-18T14:54:41.229-08:00The Kurds are definitely the most progressive grou...The Kurds are definitely the most progressive group in the region. Turks are a bit more debatable, although Ataturks brilliant leadership has certainly contributed to modernizing the Turks in contrast to the Arabs.<br /><br />However, it should be noted that Ibn Taymiyyah, the Islamic theologian whose views provide much of the theological justification for Salafism, was a Kurd, not an Arab.SHNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-78008279452786891392015-12-18T14:45:15.008-08:002015-12-18T14:45:15.008-08:00LK: Apologies, I had thought that was an endorseme...LK: Apologies, I had thought that was an endorsement of the conservative position.<br /><br />Anonymous: Propped up was a poor choice of words; however, I've never seen any indication that the US was opposed to Shi'a rule in Iraq in the aftermath of the toppling of the Husayn government, and was not supporting them over the Sunni until 2006. I'm more than willing to acknowledge that I may be incorrect about the level of support the Dawa Party received from the Bush administration following the toppling of the Husayn government, so if you have analysis that indicates the opposite, I'd be very much interested in reading it.<br /><br />I don't recall ever claiming Iraq doesn't have it's own politics, or that the US orchestrated everything there. I don't believe my poor choice of words with "propped up" indicates either of those views you attributed to me. What I did point out was that US supported the Dawa Party, and Shi'a rule, well before Al Qaeda in Iraq, or Daesh, became a factor, and that this may indicate that our mishandling of Iraq played a rather key role in the circumstance that led to the rise of Daesh. Heck, even Cheney recognized this before 9/11 drove him insane, hence him rather accurately predicting what went down when we toppled the Husayn government in the CSPAN interview in '94 when he explained why we made the right decision by castrating Husayn, rather than toppling him.<br /><br />I think you may have misunderstood why I brought up Atran's conclusions, because your counterpoints are not even remotely relevant to why I brought up Atran's research. Atran's claim is that the primary motivator for those joining the Jihad while there was a US troop presence in Iraq, was the US troop presence in Iraq. He bases this off his field interviews and experiments with Jihadists, at times done at the behest of the US state department; if you are claiming this is not the case, I'd be very interested to see what you're basing this off of. Further more, I brought this up as an indication that, rather than stabilizing Iraq by remaining (which LK accurately pointed out is a conservative claim), having American soldiers staying behind and fighting Daesh could very well have increased their pool of recruits, and strengthen their legitimacy. That seems a rather logical conclusion to reach from Atran's conclusions. How events in Syria, or there being numerous Jihads in history, disprove that claim, you'll have to explain to me.<br /><br />I suppose I should also note that it's difficult to see Islamists in Syria becoming a major factor had the US and our allies not been so hellbent on removing Assad from power, by any means necessary. Similarly difficult to see them becoming a major factor without US allies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, assisting the Islamists against Assad...or, hell, it's difficult to see Salafism becoming a dominant theology without all the Saudi money dedicated to spreading this terrorist sect internationally. I do know that, in Libya, at least, the Obama administration making the boneheaded move of reversing the Bush administration's improving of relations with Qaddafi (one of Bush's better decisions in the aftermath of 9/11), and toppling him, seems to be a key factor (if not THE key factor) for understanding why Libya has become an Islamist hotspot.<br /><br />Q6: I can't speak for the OP, but as someone who thinks it's fairly obvious that decades of US foreign policy in the region are a key contributor to the rise of Islamism as an ideology from the 80's until today, it seems like one in a long line of US missteps and blunders in the region. These go back decades; I suppose it's a testament to the ignorance of those on the left taking issue with LK's points that there's no mention of NATO cold war policy in the region during 60's and 70's, and the key role this played in Islamism winning out over other ideologies that made the mistake of leaning Soviet in the 60's and 70's.SHNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-84531948492490058512015-12-18T13:10:45.033-08:002015-12-18T13:10:45.033-08:00If I'm just trying to illustrate "attempt...If I'm just trying to illustrate "attempts," as in a sign of "desire," then it doesn't matter that they failed. Please stop accusing me of dishonesty while disregarding scope of my remarks. If lobbing such insults is more important to you than civil debate, then you can help yourself to the last word, and I'll take my traffic elsewhere.<br /><br /><i>(2) oh, so by colonialism you mean large-scale immigration and settlement.</i><br /><br />Yes, settler colonialism is certainly one sort, though not the only one. I'm not sure how my attempts to communicate the term are not working. I recommend taking a look at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism" rel="nofollow">this</a>.<br /><br /><i>Contiguous. Contiguous doesn't count! </i><br /><br />This is uncalled for, Ken. Please stop misrepresenting my argument. "Contiguous" is not necessarily non-colonial. But empirically most colonial empires have not been. If my use of the word above offends, then just ignore it.The First Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66291750984075786062015-12-18T12:53:03.061-08:002015-12-18T12:53:03.061-08:00(2) oh, so by colonialism you mean large-scale imm...(2) oh, so by colonialism you mean large-scale immigration and settlement. Yes, the West has done a lot of this, mainly in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. However, in the rest of the world Europeans remained a small minority even at the height of imperialism, e.g., in Africa, South Asia, East Asia and the Middle East.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9428487813653181572015-12-18T12:50:36.532-08:002015-12-18T12:50:36.532-08:00"What about the Ottomans?"
Contiguous. C..."What about the Ottomans?"<br />Contiguous. Contiguous doesn't count! <br />Gets the Aztecs off the hook too. <br /><br />The first thing you see when you enter Westminster Abbey, more or less the sanctum sanctorum of what remains of the British Empire, if you look down, is the burial place of William Wilberforce. He was placed there by that empire. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-28550798076191370082015-12-18T12:49:10.667-08:002015-12-18T12:49:10.667-08:00(1) "We've literally discussed numerous e...(1) <i>"We've literally discussed numerous examples throughout history in the span of this very conversation."</i><br /><br />You have done no such thing. Your Cyrus example failed. The West African ones were not even specified and probably came the period after 1800 when the UK was pressuring them to abolish slavery, and so don't even count. <br /><br />That leaves you with 6 relating to India, China, and Japan, but none of these actually succeeded in permanently abolishing slavery:<br /><br />(1) in the 3rd century BC, the Indian emperor Ashoka “abolishes slave trade and encourages people to treat slaves well <b>but does not abolish slavery itself in the Maurya Empire</b>, covering the majority of India” . <b>So he didn’t actually abolish slavery at all.</b><br /><br />(2) there were at least four attempts to ban slavery in China: <b>they all failed or were revoked by later emperors.</b><br /><br />(3) in 1590, Toyotomi Hideyoshi “bans slavery in Japan. However, it continued as a punishment for criminals.” In other words, slavery for many people continued.<br /><br />In your dishonesty mind, these rare examples suddenly become "numerous examples". Give up. You lost on this issue.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80879765291683235972015-12-18T12:40:25.087-08:002015-12-18T12:40:25.087-08:00lol... utter bullsh*t. Nothing you cite has proven...<i>lol... utter bullsh*t. Nothing you cite has proven this. What you show is some limited attempts to either curb the slave trade or slavery in a very non-Western few societies, nearly always unsuccessful. In fact, the original link actually constitutes much evidence against your view.</i><br /><br />How on earth can you claim this? We've literally discussed <i>numerous</i> examples throughout history in the span of this very conversation. Is there some more exact numerical definition of "numerous" you're looking for? Or are you just pulling my leg?<br /><br /><i>What about the aggressive, violent and large empires</i><br /><br />This is interesting. Why are they "aggressive, violent" here? I feel you're doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing -- painting with too broad and disparaging a brush.<br /><br />As for the examples you've given, to my knowledge only the Assyrians had "colonies" per se -- trading ports, mostly, and certainly not a global order of subalternity, and even then not in over 3,000 years+. So I'm not sure many will agree that they're a better contender for "chief exponent of colonialism."<br /><br /><i>What about the Ottomans?</i><br /><br />Again, does "chief" fit? Doubtful; never pursued overseas colonies, and ultimately unraveled amid struggles between imperialist powers, which sorta excludes it from the top-dog spot in and of itself.<br /><br />I dunno, man. I took it with some grace when you corrected me, earlier. Why is this not a two-way street?The First Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13997547600859951042015-12-18T12:24:07.128-08:002015-12-18T12:24:07.128-08:00The Dawa Party that the US propped up from the beg...<i>The Dawa Party that the US propped up from the beginning?</i><br /><br />The US never 'propped up' the Dawa Party. It won a plurality of votes in a free election. In any case, Maliki later split from the party to form his own 'State of Law' list. Iraq has its own internal politics and not everything that happened was because the US was pulling the strings. <br /><br />Scott Atran has been proved wrong by events in Syria, where men signed up for Jihad without any American boots on the ground. They have been many Jihads in the history of Islam, most of which occurred before the USA existed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-12926869041274408492015-12-18T12:20:56.806-08:002015-12-18T12:20:56.806-08:00Q6@December 18, 2015 at 10:39 AM
Ask the conserva...Q6@December 18, 2015 at 10:39 AM<br /><br />Ask the conservatives. I am not a conservative.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68014444557496989912015-12-18T12:14:10.006-08:002015-12-18T12:14:10.006-08:00What about the Ottomans?What about the Ottomans?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5914308768097042392015-12-18T12:13:37.564-08:002015-12-18T12:13:37.564-08:00"Anyhow, while the West has been the chief ex...<i>"Anyhow, while the West has been the chief exponent of colonialism, "</i><br /><br />This is again utter rubbish. What about the aggressive, violent and large empires of the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians (e.g., the Persian invasions of Greece, c. 490 and 480-79 BC), Arabs, Mongols, and Chinese? China today still controls the territory of the former Manchu empire, with many subject peoples.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22058101851694628632015-12-18T12:10:24.355-08:002015-12-18T12:10:24.355-08:00"The desire to abolish slavery has existed at...<i>"The desire to abolish slavery has existed at numerous points in numerous societies virtually the entire world over, "</i><br /><br />lol... utter bullsh*t. Nothing you cite has proven this. What you show is some limited attempts to either curb the slave trade or slavery in a very non-Western few societies, nearly always unsuccessful. In fact, the original link actually constitutes much evidence against your view.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6920663725218558722015-12-18T11:06:10.022-08:002015-12-18T11:06:10.022-08:00Maybe Cyrus (at most) freed some Jewish slaves or ...<i>Maybe Cyrus (at most) freed some Jewish slaves or others, but this a very different from what you are claiming. </i><br /><br />According to the reference in the very source you cite, he DID order the release of his own followers. But it appears you are correct to say as it was not a universal declaration as such, as the world was led to believe.<br /><br />I concede this point, so let me rephrase my overall argument:<br /><br />The desire to abolish slavery has existed at numerous points in numerous societies virtually the entire world over, and numerous initiatives have accomplished this in their particular contexts. However, only -- as you and I clearly both are saying -- has the West seen such initiatives correspond to the power to enact it on a global scale.<br /><br />From this it follows that it is not a *uniquely* Western *value*, which connects to my point about the dangers of arrogating <i>an entire virtue</i> as such.<br /><br /><i>The piffle about having noses is laughable.</i><br /><br />Only if my point did not come across. If the analogy is not similar enough for your tastes, then let us use one from the social realm: It is like saying "developing architecture" is a "Chinese" trait. <br /><br />It begs the question either way, and I have taken the time to even spell out said question for you. We can nitpick the specifics of how to better communicate the point, but said point is, it contributes to ethnocentrism and chauvinism.<br /><br /><i>I still await a reply to my question. If these moral advances are recent and hard won does that not make their defense more important? </i><br /><br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>Something you do every chance you get everywhere you go is more representative of your cultural values I think than cherry picked examples from a far vastly population of actions. </i><br /><br />You're arguing against me as though I'm using a very different level of abstraction than I actually am. I'm talking about the role of genocidal behavior in colonialism, not Western history per se. This relationship is consistent. <br /><br />(Plus, the ISIS comparison, to say nothing of the charge of cherry-picking, is further complicated by the fact that its entire existence has been spent in a state of active, organized warfare.)<br /><br />Anyhow, while the West has been the chief exponent of colonialism, that's a separate point that only need be considered in relation to what I am arguing is a whitewashed construct.The First Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-69800183598031862922015-12-18T10:39:31.236-08:002015-12-18T10:39:31.236-08:00The reason, the president added, “that we did not ...<i>The reason, the president added, “that we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off of [Prime Minister Nuri Kamal] al-Maliki.” That only would have encouraged, he said, Maliki and other Shiites to think: “‘We don’t actually have to make compromises.’”</i><br /><br />This is a good example of how even well-meant and justifiable policies of Western governments are twisted by anti-Western leftists into something sinister. Obama was trying to get a sectarian Shiite prime minister to treat the Sunni minority less harshly so they wouldn't want to ally themselves with ISIS. In retrospect, he was naive, but he certainly wasn't using ISIS as 'a strategic asset'. He wanted to defeat them as much as Maliki, but hoped it could be done without US military involvement. That's supposed to be an example of Western perfidy?<br /><br />It's a mode of discourse that's repeated ad nauseam by the anti-Western left. Whenever an outrage occurs in the world, Western culpability is taken as axiomatic. Facts and motives may be twisted to any degree to illustrate this culpability. <br />Q6noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-80408575046480580912015-12-18T10:37:26.664-08:002015-12-18T10:37:26.664-08:00Who would've been that 'moderate governmen...Who would've been that 'moderate government' that would prevented the rise of Daesh, LK? The Dawa Party that the US propped up from the beginning? The same Dawa Party that pledged open allegiance to Ayatollah Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution in the short window between Husayn's coup, and his war against Iran? <br /><br /> Pretending that US boots on the ground would've prevented the rise of Daesh also ignores what Scott Atran, who has done actual field research on Islamists from Morocco to Papa New Guinea, had noted about the US presence in Iraq-that it was overwhelmingly the primary motivator for those signing up for the Jihad. Why would this have magically changed as a result of the US fighting Daesh as opposed to other sunni militias?SHNnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16277817898637682152015-12-18T09:50:02.923-08:002015-12-18T09:50:02.923-08:00I still await a reply to my question. If these mor...I still await a reply to my question. If these moral advances are recent and hard won does that not make their defense more important? <br /><br />An amusing game is being played. ISIS has a short history and limited size. It's daily ubiquitous crimes are compared to events from centuries ago over a vast landmass. Something you do every chance you get everywhere you go is more representative of your cultural values I think than cherry picked examples from a far vastly population of actions. More women are killed in Canada each year than were killed by Richard Speck. Canada is not Richard Speck writ large. <br />Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-85928702654580947412015-12-18T09:35:25.813-08:002015-12-18T09:35:25.813-08:00"But surely you see that in this universal ca...<i>"But surely you see that in this universal case, "Western" becomes meaningless. "</i><br /><br />No, it does not. One can say that Western or Eastern values happen to be the same. The piffle about having noses is laughable. Having a nose is not like having a value.<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16134153497435799662015-12-18T09:31:13.644-08:002015-12-18T09:31:13.644-08:00(1) "In the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. This wa...(1) <i>"In the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. This was some time ago."</i><br /><br />Where? The is no convincing historical evidence that Cyrus abolished slavery, and I have studied this period. You are wrong. <br /><br />Maybe Cyrus (at most) freed some Jewish slaves or others, but this a very different from what you are claiming. <br /><br />Probably you are referring to a clearly false and incorrect translation of an ancient source called the "Cyrus cylinder":<br /><br /><i>"A false translation of the text – affirming, among other things, the abolition of slavery and the right to self-determination, a minimum wage and asylum – has been promoted on the Internet and elsewhere"</i><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder<br /><br />Conclusion: your whole original point above was this:<br /><br /><i>"One may well argue that abolition is indeed common across many cultures and times."</i><br /><br />No. Successful abolition seems very rare. None of the major non-Western empires did it. Only a Western empire successfully abolished it and actually used its power to make many other states also do so. Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-74874330382541291172015-12-18T09:14:41.764-08:002015-12-18T09:14:41.764-08:00(1) on slavery, no, you have not proven your case ...<i>(1) on slavery, no, you have not proven your case at all. You say that Cyrus the Great of Persia abolished slavery.</i><br /><br />In the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. This was some time ago.<br /><br /><i>Though it was not unique, there was a "moral impulse of the West" that did have role here. </i><br /><br />"Unique" was the important word. If you omit it, then you change my whole meaning. Either way, it seems we agree here.<br /><br /><i>No switch the discussion to other people and not the people on this blog to whom you were responding in a dishonest trick.</i><br /><br />...???<br /><br /><i>we could easily say: "our core values are the same as theirs!" but they would not stop being our values.</i><br /><br />But surely you see that in this universal case, "Western" becomes meaningless. It's like taking "having a nose" and declaring it a "white" trait. Yes, it's technically accurate, but inherently misleading. It puts me in mind of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP4yX2rkpBc" rel="nofollow">"the Fairsley difference"</a>.<br /><br /><i>But it is no excuse for sloppy history and failure to see that plenty of evil came out of and continues to come out of the non-Western world.</i><br /><br />Where did I ever make the claim that the non-Western world is somehow pure? My point is to remove the shoe of idealist abstractions, not to stick it on a different foot.<br /><br /><i>Wait. Contiguous matters? Rome was not an empire? Darius not an emperor? Won't Chinese historians be surprised.</i><br /><br />The discussion pertained to colonies and colonial empires in the specific.<br /><br /><i>Evidence? The Mongols when they sacked cities engaged in straightforward mass murder on a regular, freqeunt and massive scale.</i><br /><br />There are so many examples I scarcely know where to begin. I suppose I could start with the Herero genocide? Or the Congo under King Leopold II? Or the extermination of Native Americans? Or the Holocaust? Or even many, many other less well-known examples. Scotland and Ireland stood at the receiving end of numerous atrocities.<br /><br /><i>"The English, led by the Duke of Cumberland, defeated the Scots and began one of the worst persecutions of a nation known to history, earning the title ‘Butcher’ Cumberland for their leader. The Scottish survivors were chased from the field of battle and slaughtered. For two days the wounded and dead of the Scottish army lay where they had fallen, guarded by English soldiers so that no medical or burial parties could get to them. Looting was officially organised and £5 was paid for the head of every ‘rebel’ brought to Major-General John Huske, the English Commander at Fort Augustus. Towns and villages were razed to the ground, people slaughtered wholesale and those that managed to escape massacre were imprisoned, executed or transported."</i><br /><br />- Peter Berresford Ellis and Seumas Mac a’Globhaim, "The Scottish Insurrection of 1820"<br /><br /><i>"[Tudor warfare], as conducted by Carew, by Gilbert, by Pelham, by Mountjoy, was was literally a war of extermination. The slaughter of Irishmen was looked upon as literally the slaughter of wild beasts. Not only the men, but even the women and children who fell into the hands of the English, were deliberately and systematically butchered. Bands of soldiers traversed great tracts of the country, slaying every living thing they met. The sword was not found sufficiently expeditious, but another method proved much more efficacious. Year after year, over a great part of Ireland, all means of human subsistence were destroyed, no quarter was given to prisoners who surrendered, and the whole population was skilfully and steadily starved to death. The pictures of the condition of Ireland at this time are as terrible as anything in human history."</i><br /><br />-William Lecky, "A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. II"<br /><br />Shall I keep going?The First Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-62865187336120037882015-12-18T09:11:50.485-08:002015-12-18T09:11:50.485-08:00I believe sex WAS the main motive for the Arab sla...I believe sex WAS the main motive for the Arab slave trade, in that most of the slaves were female, and female slaves fetched a higher price than male ones. The Umayyad Caliphs preferred fair-skinned blond concubines, so racism (of a positive type?) was involved. Black female slaves were also raped by European men, but this was less common in societies where polygamy and concubinage were not lawful. Probably, the Arabs were more sexist than racist, while the Europeans were more racist than sexist. <br /><br />Given this history, it IS a huge achievement that mainstream western opinion is today so strongly opposed to racism. As for sexism in the Muslim world, the Turks and the Kurds seem to have made more progress than the Arabs.New guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-82524009113889243602015-12-18T08:12:09.367-08:002015-12-18T08:12:09.367-08:00Wait. Contiguous matters? Rome was not an empire? ...Wait. Contiguous matters? Rome was not an empire? Darius not an emperor? Won't Chinese historians be surprised.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-5723228598705703862015-12-18T08:10:43.371-08:002015-12-18T08:10:43.371-08:00"I live in the West and love it quite well, b...<i>"I live in the West and love it quite well, but I also don't whitewash its problems (past or present) and insist that we hold ourselves to an ever-improving humanitarian standard. Is this so wrong? "</i><br /><br />Not at all. It is absolutely admirable. <br /><br />It is what all decent people should do.<br /><br />But it is no excuse for sloppy history and failure to see that plenty of evil came out of and continues to come out of the non-Western world.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com