(Arabs Are) The Irish of the World: Understanding our current struggle.

National Review ^ | January 14, 2004 | John Derbyshire

[quidnunc]

We all know, and have known since 9/11, that our country faces a threat. What kind of threat is it, though, that has brought us this war on terror? I doubt there are many of us who think that it is the kind of threat that Britain faced from Hitler, or the Roman Republic from Hannibal — the threat of conquest and subjugation by an enemy power. On the other hand, the threat is plainly not trivial. I remarked soon after 9/11 that the behavior of the administration was that of people who had asked their highest-level security people, at some sober meeting, across some polished table set out with notepads and water glasses, what was the worst that might happen, and been told in reply: "We could lose a city." George W. Bush is the kind of man who, after being told that, would immediately say, or think: "Not if there's anything I can do to stop it." But is this right — could we really lose a city? What are the stakes in the war on terror? What is the nature, what is the scale, of the threat we face?

Folk like me, who pass comment on public affairs for a living, think about this constantly. (Not that many other citizens don't likewise. I am only saying that when opinions are your business, this is one point on which you must have an opinion.) We read anything we can find that will help clarify the issue in our minds. We don't, of course, all come to the same conclusion, even after reading the same material — human nature precludes that kind of unanimity. We come to some kind of conclusion, though. Here is mine.

-snip-

Imagine you are a citizen of a single nation with some decent cultural achievements to its credit in the past — at very least, in the decorative arts, in poetry and literature, and in the transmission of knowledge from the ancient world to the late-medieval. Imagine now that your nation finds itself living in the shadow of a much richer, more powerful, more aggressive nation — a nation that is aggressive not only in arms, but also in culture, spreading its language and art, even its social customs and political institutions. Suppose, further, that this bigger, richer, more aggressive nation has seized a part of your territory, planted its own people there, and denied your claim to sovereignty over it. As a young person of spirit, how would you feel about this?

-snip-

The analogy does work in one respect, though: in each case there is a Cause, rooted in blood and honor, in history and in the resentment that the weak feel towards the strong, the failed towards the successful — a Cause to which young persons can dedicate their lives. It is a Cause, furthermore, so overwhelming in its demand on the emotions that any kind of action, anything at all, is justified in furtherance of it. Hence terrorism; hence the war on terror.

-snip-

[2banana]

Oh brother, arab terrorists = the IRA because they fight against "occupation" by another country. Both are pretty well Marxist so at least the author got that right.

Hell, we might as well equate Hamas to the Founding Fathers.

[ffusco]

Arabs are NOT the Irish of the world.

Apologies are due to Celts everywhere.

[quidnunc]

2banana wrote: Oh brother, arab terrorists = the IRA because they fight against "occupation" by another country. Both are pretty well Marxist so at least the author got that right. Hell, we might as well equate Hamas to the Founding Fathers.

You didn't have time to read the whole article before you posted your reply.

[Texas_Dawg]

That was not the objective of modern Irish terrorism. The objective was to expel the hated Other from Irish land, and to kill as many of them as possible, for sheer hatred's sake.

Very true. Good article.

[Sender]

Imagine you are a citizen of a single nation with some decent cultural achievements to its credit in the past — at very least, in the decorative arts, in poetry and literature, and in the transmission of knowledge from the ancient world to the late-medieval.

Unfortunately, their progress seems to have halted at the late-medieval.

Imagine now that your nation finds itself living in the shadow of a much richer, more powerful, more aggressive nation

Israel is richer and more powerful not only because of US support, but because they have embraced cutting-edge 21st century technology instead of moon worship and swords. As to Israel being more aggressive...yeah right. That's why the world lives in fear of Israeli homicide bombers, eh?

Suppose, further, that this bigger, richer, more aggressive nation has seized a part of your territory, planted its own people there, and denied your claim to sovereignty over it.

With the Islamists' claim to Palestine, al Aqsa and 50 cents, I still couldn't get a Starbucks coffee.

[50sDad]

You know, Hitler talked to his people before WWII. He sensed the national zeitgeist. He knew the German people felt that the world had treated them unfairly. He knew the German people felt that they had a grand and glorious past, and that after WWI the world had put unfair restrictions on their country, limiting them economicaly and physically. He knew that there was a particular kind of German who would be willing to go risk their lives and kill others if it meant regaining their national glory.

I am sick to death about people telling me I need to "understand" Islam, as if insisting that if I only "understood" all the Muslims have been through, I wouldn't be so quick to condemn them for slaughtering horribly 3000 innocent civilian mothers and fathers for the simple crime of going to work to feed their families. If I only "understood" the hard lives they must live (under the lash of their non-democratic, hardline, religious leaders who chop their hands off, then tell them to be angry with the West because our women actually show their ankles) then I wouldn't be so single-minded as to condemn them for shooting people in the head for kite-flying. If I only "understood" how grand and glorious their culture was a thousand years ago, since they invented the zero and all (allowing heathen infidels like us to enjoy food, shelter, and peace the likes of which they have never known, thanks to the technology they condemn) then I wouldn't be so quick to condemn their culture for not really producing an innovation in a millenium.

Look, Libs out there, I don't need to "understand" Hitler, and appriciate what a rough time Germany had before we had to spill American blood kicking his @$$. The important thing is that I understand how a thourghly evil bastard used his people to try and take over the world by killing millions of innocent people. I clearly see how a bunch of so-called religious leaders have corrupted a generation of people into taking up arms to kill. Same old story, new despots. IMHO, 90% of the Muslim population is welcome to live in the past if they want to enjoy the benifits like starvation, meyhem against their own, and secret police. However, the day 10% of them came around here to try and destroy the rest of us infidels, they had no idea who they were picking on.

I understand Evil when I see it. I have no sympathy for Sauron, Hitler, or the next bully that steps up after we make Bin Ladin a dark smear on the floor. You invented the zero. Great. But even if you gave us flipping cheap fusion power and anti-gravity, if you fail to stand up and condemn the cruel bastards who murdered innocent Americans, and condem them clearly and often, than you are as guilty as the Jehadis that flew into the Towers.

My President is a cowboy. Yippo-yo-kai-yay, get out of the way, locked and loaded. We dragged the "brave and powerful" Saddam out of his hidy-hole, and sometime soon, we will drag the rest of you brave Jehadis out into the daylight. Maybe the next genration will be smarter.

[hang 'em]

The Muslim Arabs did not invent the concept of zero. It was taken from Hindu India, IIRC.

[tiamat]

Wow!

Thanks!

Tia

[sheik yerbouty]

"'Time to play "Cowboys and jihadis..."

[50sDad]

And the disclaimer I should append to the above is:

DISCLAIMER: "This rant applies to Jihadists only, and is not meant to appear threatening or hateful to the surely thousands of Muslims who choose to peacefully live out the tenants of their faith, provided they don't try and convert me by force of weapon, threat, or terrorist activity. My chosen Chistian faith has had occasional mis-steps into violence, something that Christ would not approve of, but has mostly steered clear of that kind of thing in the past 300 years or so. We wish our Muslim brothers the best in coming to terms with the violent overtones of their chosen faith, and hope they will join us in a better world where we do not have to blindly suspect you all of evil because of the deadly, cruel, bigoted, terror acts committed by a few of you."

[John H K]

Arabs are NOT the Irish of the world.
Apologies are due to Celts everywhere

Had there been a Free Republic in, say, 1850 to 1900, I strongly suspect the opinion of the Irish on it would be some combination of the opinion of Arabs and Mexican immigrants on the FR today.

[dangus]

"What right have ya ta sing the blues?
Lemme tell ya:
Everbody know that the Irish are the blacks of Europe,
and Dublinners are the blacks of Ireland,
and we North Dublinners are the blacks of Dublin,
So if anyone be askin ya what right have ya ta sing the blues,
ya look'im straight in de eyes, you say it to'im,
ya say it once and say it loud,
'I'm black an' I'm proud!' "
-- Jimmy Rabbitte in "The Commitments." (from memory)

For full effect, this must be spoken in full Irish brogue, including rolling the "r" in "proud."

[Diddle E. Squat]

That 'Christmas morning on St. Patrick's Day' Guiness beer TV commercial is pretty funny.

[dangus]

One difference:

The Irish in Ireland couldn't give a cr@p about N. Ireland. It was a wierd subset among *American* Irish who, perhaps longing for some connection with Ireland, funded the I.R.A.

The Palestinian cause would be like Adams demanding a New Ireland, with London as its capital and promising to "drive the Brits to into the sea."

[luvbach1]

I have locked horns in chat rooms with muslim arabs who claim it is they, and not we (the West), who are the inheritors of Ancient Greek (golden age 450 BC, mostly Athens) culture: art, philosophy, mathematics, etc., and perhaps most notably, representative democracy. They have not heard of, or at least reject, the historical truism of Ancient Greece as the cradle of Western civilization. Give them the invention of the zero (ably disputed in this thread), what have they done lately? Like in the last 1,000 years?

[Billthedrill]

Derbyshire admits it's an imperfect analogy, which it certainly is. The sense of despair that he cites in Saudi Arabia is not the same as that in Ireland - it is not the sense of a nation that, physically occupied, maintains a culture and national pride despite it all. It is, on the contrary, the desperation and anger of a people whose very culture has failed them. That is a huge difference.

It needn't have done so. We read ad nauseum of the intellectual and cultural heights the Islamic world once enjoyed relative to the brutal and illiterate West. Most accounts note that the West changed where Islam did not - this is not exactly true. The form of Islam that has decided to exert itself in the late 20th century is, in fact, a stifling distortion of a once relatively tolerant and open culture that would be as incapable of competing with its cultural predecessor as it is of competing with the West today. If there is despair, that is the reason - the young people know perfectly well that it is a deliberately-chosen cultural dead end effected by those who insist that it is the only alternative to the perceived decadence of the West. It is not.

There are obvious examples of this. It is a shock to those of us used to hearing the incessant bleating of various imams and mullahs to learn that Islam in its traditional form has no formal clergy at all. It does now. Edicts from the doctors of Islam concerning jurisprudence were checked in terms of foreign relations policy by the advent of the Sultan in application, and controlled by the guiding hand of the Caliph in origination. Neither exist today, and the self-proclaimed heads of religion have an untrammelled influence with no accountability whatever. This sort of thing goes on and on.

One indication that this process of ossification is irreversible at this point is to try to imagine what it would take for Islam in general to agree on a Caliph or submit to a Sultan today. It would take that, IMHO, to restore the characteristic features of a culture that once could compete and today would at least have a chance at exhibiting the flexibility and adaptability that are so vital to the survival of any culture in today's world. We see none of that in the theocrats who have taken over Iran, for example. And it's going to cost them dearly.

[50sDad]

Hah! I stand corrected!

[Astronaut]

What an insult to fine Irish people everywhere. The barbarity and stupidity of arabs, especially the Palestinians, is without parallel.

[browardchad]

There are far more differences than there are similarities -- the entire analogy is too much of stretch for me.

I usually enjoy reading Derbeyshire, but he really must have been hard-pressed to meet a deadline on this one.