Yes! Blame the promiscuous Women for the Earthquakes

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Great explanation Dennis. I tried to express something similar myself but got so muddled I didn't post

Not sure about the part where the Spanish got this attitude from the Arabs though, because I'm not sure the Arabs had that mindset at the time. But it's just a feeling, I may be wrong. Hey, maybe they got it from the Spanish?

Assume the Arabs did. This stuff is a cultural reflex, and it predates Islam. Culture shapes religion as much as religion shapes culture. Islamic law will simply make formal as part of the law prohibitions that already existed before Islam came about. Whenever you have this sort of transfer of cultural patterns, it will be conqueror -> conquered. The conqueror imposes their way of doing things on those they conquer.

Much of the middle east is still fundamentally a tribal culture. Families aggregate into clans, and clans aggregate into tribes. Relationships between those groups are of paramount importance. (Look into the long standing conflict between the Arab Lakhmid and Ghassanid tribes.)

Democracy (to the extent it exists) is a thin veneer over long standing cultural patterns. Primary loyalty is to one's family, clan, and tribe.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

What happens when cultures with incompatible solutions meet?

West Side Story?

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

West Side Story?

I hope to make a constructive contribution to this interesting thread suggesting a book of 10 years ago, that is available on line and that can be obtained in pdf for the mere amount of 99 cents, if I remember correctly.

The book, and I refer to it quite often is The Clash of Civilizations, that I am sure you have read. If not you can read it here.

It is a serious book, not a joke. It is not propaganda IMHO. It is very interesting.

[kennyc]

Thanks for that link!

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Thanks for that link!

To you in double for starting this fine thread.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

whatever she wrote

well behaved women rarely make history!

that's your signature my dear kindlekitten.

And just read it in reverse: not well behaved women make it happen!

Gotcha!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by beppe

I hope to make a constructive contribution to this interesting thread suggesting a book of 10 years ago, that is available on line and that can be obtained in pdf for the mere amount of 99 cents, if I remember correctly.

The book, and I refer to it quite often is The Clash of Civilizations, that I am sure you have read. If not you can read it here.

The article at the link is less than 10,000 words; it's not a full book. (At least, not by any normal book standards. I know that Twain's "The War Prayer" has been released as a book, and it's less than 1500 words. But the book was picture-heavy and basically treated it like a poem.)

It is a serious book, not a joke. It is not propaganda IMHO. It is very interesting.

It seems decent enough; I PDF'd it with the settings I like & put it on my reader to read later. But being serious doesn't mean it's not propaganda, which doesn't have to include lies, just deliberate focusing of some facts while steering attention away from others. (I don't know if this is propaganda or not.) I consider Michael Moore's films to be propaganda; that I like them & mostly agree with them doesn't change that he's trying to promote an agenda, not give a neutral portrayal of facts.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The article at the link is less than 10,000 words; it's not a full book. (At least, not by any normal book standards. I know that Twain's "The War Prayer" has been released as a book, and it's less than 1500 words. But the book was picture-heavy and basically treated it like a poem.)

You are right. I am sorry. Something happened with the link. Actually I own the pbook. When I looked this link up, sometime ago, it had THE book in separate linked chapters. And a link to the pdf. It does not have it anymore.

It seems decent enough; I PDF'd it with the settings I like & put it on my reader to read later. But being serious doesn't mean it's not propaganda, which doesn't have to include lies, just deliberate focusing of some facts while steering attention away from others. (I don't know if this is propaganda or not.) I consider Michael Moore's films to be propaganda; that I like them & mostly agree with them doesn't change that he's trying to promote an agenda, not give a neutral portrayal of facts.

I wrote It is a serious book, not a joke.
(Now imagine that you go, take a walk, drink a cup of coffe, than come back and resume reading.

It is not propaganda IMHO.

The book has generated controversy.

I do not understand what Moore has to do with this.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by beppe

I wrote It is a serious book, not a joke.
(Now imagine that you go, take a walk, drink a cup of coffe, than come back and resume reading.

It is not propaganda IMHO.
The book has generated controversy.
I do not understand what Moore has to do with this.

I'll take your word that it's not intended as propaganda. And I don't think of propaganda as necessarily bad, just biased towards an agenda. (This doesn't seem to be biased on first glance.)

It's on my PRS-505 and slated to be read when I finish the book I'm currently reading.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'll take your word that it's not intended as propaganda. And I don't think of propaganda as necessarily bad, just biased towards an agenda. (This doesn't seem to be biased on first glance.)

It's on my PRS-505 and slated to be read when I finish the book I'm currently reading.

Thank you for answering.
I am sorry not to be able to find the whole book again. You have a PM message about this.
The subject is of primary importance, well above the title of this thread.

Have a look to this link now here. I checked it 2 minutes ago.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by beppe

Thank you for answering.
I am sorry not to be able to find the whole book again. You have a PM message about this.
The subject is of primary importance, well above the title of this thread.

Have a look to this link now here. I checked it 2 minutes ago.

Here the link to the (extended) book on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civiliza...1802251&sr=8-1

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Somehow... that doesn't explain how the women get in trouble, jailed, caned, etc, for not covering themselves properly...

if they step outside the parameters tempting the weakness of men it can be assumed that they are in league with Satan. in many ways their social mores remind me of the more intolerant puritans

Originally Posted by beppe

well behaved women rarely make history!

that's your signature my dear kindlekitten.

And just read it in reverse: not well behaved women make it happen!

Gotcha!

so you can imagine what I am

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The article at the link is less than 10,000 words; it's not a full book. (At least, not by any normal book standards. I know that Twain's "The War Prayer" has been released as a book, and it's less than 1500 words. But the book was picture-heavy and basically treated it like a poem.)

It's not a book. It's an article that originally appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1993, and spawned a book.

I don't consider it propaganda. It's an analysis by Samuel P. Huntington, who was Eaton Professor of the Science of Government and Director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. The article is the product of the Olin Institute's project on "The Changing Security Environment and American National Interests." He's proposing a framework for analyzing potential future conflicts in terms of clashes between civilizations.

I think it's a good starting point for discussion, but my initial feeling is that he assigns too limited a definition to "culture", and I see things as clashes between cultures.

Culture is usually thought of as "everything we know and do", but it is broader and deeper. Like the proverbial iceberg, 90% of it is hidden, and operates on an unconscious level. We are generally no more aware of our culture than a fish is of the water it swims in. It's what we are raised in and we deal with it automatically. We don't really think about it until we are exposed to other cultures where things are done differently. We tend to assume that everyone else shares our world view and motivations, and does things the same way we do for the same reasons. This is not true, and the results can be tragic if we fail to realize it.

What parts of culture operate on the unconscious level? For one, take the use of space. Specifically, let's consider "personal space". Assume you are at a gathering, talking to someone you've just met, and there is enough space for people to arrange themselves comfortably. How far apart are you standing? If you are in a culture that derives from northern Europe (like the US), the answer is about three feet. That's considered the appropriate social distance between people who are not family or close friends. Nobody ever explicitly tells you "You stand three feet away from strangers or casual acquaintances". You learn it at a pre-verbal age, observing and mimicking the the behavior of those around you. If you want to play with it, try stepping a little too close to someone. They'll move back to maintain the proper distance. Move a little too close again. They'll move back. If you're good, you can march someone clear around a room that way, and they will be totally unaware it's being done. It is dealt with on a reflex level.

Now take someone from our culture and drop them down in the Mediterranean area, where the proper social distance is about half that, and watch the fun.

As another example, do you look at someone when they speak to you? In the culture I grew up in, you do. Failing to turn and look at them when addressed will be seen as evidence you aren't paying attention and a sign of disrespect. In other cultures (like that of some African-Americans), hearing and vision are seen as separate senses, and the fact that someone isn't looking at you when you speak to them doesn't mean they aren't listening to you. (You may imagine the potential for confusion in relations between white teachers and African-American students...)

For a third example, how is time handled? The culture I grew up in measures and tracks time. Days are divided into hours, and hours into minutes, and various things happen on schedules the participants are expected to be aware of and adhere to. This is not necessarily the case elsewhere, and another fertile ground for confusion and anger.

Animal behaviorists have the concept of the "action chain". An action chain may be thought of as an extended reflex. It is started by a stimulus, and proceeds through a series of steps in a particular order till it reaches a conclusion. Nest building behavior is an example of an action chain. Mating behavior is another. "Fight or flight" is yet a third.

One critical point about action chains is that the steps must all be performed in the set order for the end result to occur. Interrupt an animal building a nest, and it probably starts over again from the beginning. It's not capable of picking up where it left off.

There is strong evidence that action chains exist in human behavior, too, and differ between cultures. As an example, there was an interesting problem in Britain during WWII. It was the run up to the D-Day invasion, and hundreds of thousands of US troops were quartered in Britain, waiting for the Joint Chiefs to set the date they would climb into the transports for the Normandy invasion. Allied HQ was getting complaints from a British village about the behavior of US troops stationed nearby. Village girls called the GIs "pushy" and "sex crazed". The GIs responded the girls were "prudes" or "whores". Investigation revealed the problem.

A GI would take a village girl on a date. Things would go well, and they would like each other. He would take her home and try to kiss her goodnight. The kiss, in Britain at the time, was a specifically erotic act that did not happen until much farther along in the relationship. What the GI thought he was communicating was "That was fun. I like you." What the girl got from it was that she had to either scream and run or get ready for sex.

Steps in the mating action chain were in different orders in the two cultures, causing confusion that could have had tragic results, and the US and Britain shared a common language, culture, and history, and had only really diverged about 150 years previously.

Now assume the action chain is the steps in a conflict, starting with harsh words and bad feelings, and escalating to "I'm gonna get the shotgun and kill the SOB!", and the cultures are really different, like, say, European and Arab.

A lot of what goes on between Israel and its neighbors has this sort of origin. During one of the dust ups between Israel and surrounding Arab states, an Arab general exclaimed "We aren't fighting Jews! We're fighting Europeans!" He was exactly right. Jews and Arabs are both Semitic peoples. Each considers themselves descended from Abraham. Each worships a single all powerful god, whose word is given in a holy book, and whose thoughts are communicated through prophets.They have similar languages and similar dietary and other taboos. In biblical times, Jews and Arabs lived together on the village level in relative peace, because they shared a common culture, and had similar action chains for things like conflict resolution.

Cue the destruction of the Temple and the Diaspora. Most Jews emigrated elsewhere. Fast forward to World War I. The Ottoman Turks backed the wrong side, and wound up losing most of their former empire, including Palestine, which had been part of the Satrapy of Damascus. Palestine became a British protectorate. Fast forward again to WWII. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were homeless refugees at the end of the conflict. Their homes either no longer existed, or were in places they had no desire to return to. What to do with them? For a variety of reasons including Antisemitism, none of the allies wanted them. In 1917, Lord Arthur Balfour had written a document proposing the creation of a Jewish state from the British territory in Palestine, and this was seen as a convenient solution to the problem. A UN plebiscite formally approved the idea, and the modern state of Israel came into being as a place to send the refugees.

The Jews who returned after millenia to Palestine were not the same Jews who left it. Their culture had changed radically during the Diaspora. They were not the Jews the Arabs had been accustomed to dealing with in the distant past, but neither side really figured that out. Instead, each would do something, unconsciously expecting a particular response from the other - what they would do in that situation - and not get what they expected. The results were frustration, anger, and a growing feeling on each side that the other simply could not be dealt with.

That relations over there have become parataxic should be no surprise.
______
Dennis

[Barcey]

I guess this is the answer for Colbie Callat

"It starts in my toes
and I crinkle my nose
where ever it goes..."

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

See, that's where they lose me: The explicit facts that discount this theory are the continued existence of places like Los Angeles, New York, Las Vegas and Washington, DC, whilst simultaneously not explaining how you can have an earthquake in the middle of the uninhabited ocean.

naked whales ?

thought-transfer ....